Preamble

The House met at Twelve of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Airdrie and Coatbridge Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Considered; to be Read the Third time upon Monday next.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Lincoln Extension) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hertford Extension) Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — RE-AFFORESTATION.

87. Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he will state what are the Regulations in force in the principal countries for the replanting of forest trees; what similar Regulations are operating here; and if he will state the approximate number and contents of trees felled and acreage cleared in this country in each year 1914–19, and the number of young trees planted and acreage covered in each of those years?

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER (for the Forestry Commissioners):: I have no information as to the post-War Regulations in force in foreign countries as to tree planting, and conditions are probably not yet sufficiently stable to enable a general inquiry on the subject to serve any useful purpose. There are no Regulations in force in this country to enforce replanting. No figures are available with regard to the last two parts of this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW WRIT,

for County of Norfolk (Southern Division), in the room of the Hon. WILLIAM HEPBURN COZENS - HARDY, now Lord Cozens-Hardy, called up to the House of Peers.—[Mr. Dudley Ward.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the Unemployment Insurance Bill be not interrupted this day at Five or half-past Five of the clock."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Mr. CLYNES: In view of the fact that this Bill is so far-reaching, and involves so much in finance, and that very little time of the House has been devoted to it, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of not proceeding with this Motion in order that he may deal with the matter more thoroughly?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): It is not intended that there should be a late sitting. I make this Motion simply with the idea that if we have nearly finished the Bill at five o'clock, we should not be prevented from going on with it.

Mr. CLYNES: If the Motion be not resisted, can we have an understanding that the Third Reading will not be pressed this afternoon?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that would be wise. What the right hon. Gentleman says about the far-reaching nature of the Bill is quite true, but as the business before the House is so great, and as the detailed work in connection with this Bill is very large, it is necessary that we should get the Bill through at once. If the House be willing to take the Third Reading to-day, I do not see why it should not be taken.

Question put, and agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).

Sir PARK GOFF reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from
Standing Committee C: Captain FitzRoy; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Major Barnes.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 17.—(Arrangements with associations of employed persons which make payments to members while unemployed.)

(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Minister may, on the application of any society approved under the National Insurance Act, 1911, or any other association of employed persons (other than industrial assurance companies and collecting societies, or their separate sections, or societies organised by them either solely or jointly with other bodies), being a society or other association the rules of which provide for payments to its members, or any class thereof, while unemployed, make an arrangement with the society or other association that, in lieu of paying unemployment benefit under this Act to persons who prove that they are members of the society or other association; there shall be repaid periodically to the society or other association out of the unemployment fund such sum as appears to be, as nearly as may be, equivalent to the aggregate amount which those persons would have received during that period by way of unemployment benefit under this Act if no such arrangement had been made:

Provided that the Minister shall not make or continue an arrangement with a society or other association under this Section:—

(a) Unless he is of opinion that the payments authorised by the rules of the society or other association to be made to its members when unemployed (inclusive of any payments in respect of which a refund may be made to the society or other association under this Section) represent a provision for unemployment as respects such of its members as are employed persons which during the period between the commencement of this Act and the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, exceeds the provision represented by unemployment benefit at the rate payable under this Act by an amount which is equal to at least one-third of the provision represented by unemployment benefit at the rate payable before the commencement of the National Insurance (Unemployment) Act, 1919, and which thereafter is at least one-third greater than the provision represented by unemployment benefit at the rate payable under this Act:

(b) Unless the society or association has such a system of obtaining from em-
ployers notification of vacancies for employment and giving notice thereof to its members when unemployed as is in the opinion of the Minister reasonably effective for that purpose.

(2) The council or other governing body of any society or other association of employed persons which has made such an arrangement as aforesaid shall be entitled to treat the contributions due from any of its members to the unemployment fund under this Act or any part thereof, as if such contributions formed part of the subscriptions payable by those members to the society or other association, and, notwithstanding anything in the rules of the society or other association to the contrary, may reduce the rates of subscription of those members accordingly.

(3) For the purpose of this Act, the amount of any sum which, but for this Section, would have been paid to any person by way of unemployment benefit shall be deemed to have been so paid.

(4) The Minister may make regulations for giving effect to this Section, and for referring to insurance officers, courts of referees, or the umpire appointed under this Act, any question which may arise under this Section.

(5) The fact that persons other than employed persons can be members of a society or other association shall not prevent the society or other association being treated as an association for the purposes of this Section, if the society or other association is substantially a society or other association of employed persons.

(6) The Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury and subject to such conditions and otherwise as the Minister may prescribe, pay to any society or other association with which an arrangement under this Section is in force by way of contribution towards the administrative expenses of the society or other association in connection with the arrangement, such sum, not exceeding in any year an amount calculated at the rate of one shilling for each week of the aggregate number of weeks of unemployment in respect of which a repayment is made to the society or other association under this Section, as he thinks fit, and any sum so paid shall be treated as part of the expenses Incurred by the Minister in carrying this Act into effect.

Adjourned Debate resumed on Amendment [2nd July].

Which Amendment was, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "society approved under the National Insurance Act, 1911, or any other."—[Mr. Clynes.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'or' ['or any other'], stand part of the Bill."

Mr. SEXTON: I have not the slightest intention of reflecting upon the work done by friendly societies. On the contrary, I recognise that the friendly societies have done splendid work. I should like to preface what I have to say by removing an impression from the mind of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Sir A. Warren), who referred to me recently at a meeting of a society, and quoted a sentence from the proceedings of the Committee upstairs to show that I had cast a reflection on friendly societies by classing them with the big industrial societies in the inception of the National Health Insurance Act. I want to assure him that it was never my intention, however the words may appear, to class the friendly societies in the same category as the large industrial societies. I shall content myself by quoting passages from the hon. Member's own speech on the introduction of his Amendment. He said:
May I remind the House that in the compilation of that Act it was the intention of the Government of the day that the approved societies of the country should administer unemployment insurance benefit so far as it was then anticipated, because in the main structure of the 1911 Act the provisions for unemployment insurance were contained; but in the passage of that measure through this House it was thought well to separate that portion of unemployment insurance, and it was relegated to Part II. of the 1911 Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, Cols. 962-3, Vol. 131.]
If it were intended that friendly societies should participate in the administration of unemployment benefit and the finding of employment, why was the Act separated, and why was provision made in the Schedule excluding the operations of friendly societies? The hon. Member also told us, but I am open to dispute his statement, that there are at least 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 of members of friendly societies, working men and women who are not trade unionists. We have no data for that. The mere statement of the hon. Member may or may not be true. I doubt it. Suppose, we admit the correctness of the statement. On the next page he makes the following statement:
May I tell the House that the great friendly societies are busily engaged in formulating and perfecting a scheme which I believe will meet with the entire approval of the Ministry of Labour.
May I remind the hon. Member that if that scheme is approved by the Minister
of Labour it will in his own words cater for 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 members of friendly societies of the working classes who are not trade unionists. I want to be brutally frank over this job. I am a trade unionist and speaking in the interests of trade unionism, and if the scheme is accepted by the Minister of Labour the hon. Member for Edmonton and his friends will set up an organisation that is going to compete with trade unionism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Let me complete my argument. Trade unionism to-day is created for the purpose of protecting its interests rightly or wrongly, rightly in my opinion, against an economic system that has compelled the creation of trade unionism. To protect its interests effectively it must be watertight. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If we have the friendly societies setting up machinery to compete with trade unionism, what is going to happen?
It is said that it would set up a trade union. It would not be a trade union within the actual meaning of the word, but would be a trade union to which employers can go—[HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."]—and there are employers who will go. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do not say this of all employers, far from it, but there are employers who, so long as they can escape any of what they consider the penalties of trade unionism, will go for the point of least resistance and get cheap labour which is non-unionist. I do not say that the hon. Member deliberately or consciously subscribes to a policy of that kind, but to go back to the salient fact that if the hon. Member and his friends can only find employment for the 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 members in places where trade unionists have control what is going to happen then? It may be regrettable, but it is a startling fact that the very moment a non-unionist shows his head in that trade union shop, up goes the apple cart, and you are going to have nothing but trouble all over the country where this pernicious system, from my point of view, is introduced. The hon. Member assumes that this is only going to be the open door. Does not that apply to every shop and every factory and every place where trade unionists are employed? We have heard a lot of the open door and I am going to confess frankly that, in our interests, it is necessary to shut the door and bar it pretty tightly too. We are going to find
our interests in the direction of protecting the interests of trade unionists. Trade unionism may or may not be a necessary evil, but it is the outcome of economic conditions that have compelled the working man to set up an organisation to protect himself.
There is only one way for the hon. Member to qualify for this Bill. That is that the machinery he sets up will be of such a character in every locality that he can segregate or sectionalise all the members of friendly societies in the particular industries which they follow. Otherwise they could not qualify. I will put a case to the hon. Member. It may be rather absurd, but I want to reduce it to absurdity. Suppose the manager of an engineering shop wanted a considerable number of engineers. Except there was some machinery to get into close contact with the friendly societies where he could get his men all in a lot, it would be no use going there. In existing conditions with that machinery it would not be possible for that employer to get sufficient men in any one of the friendly societies, and he would have to roam over the whole gamut of the friendly societies to get sufficient men. It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. I want the House to fancy for a moment the idea of a brewer or distiller going to the Ancient Order of Rechabites to man his brewery. Just fancy for a moment a shipowner going to the Ancient Order of the Sons of Harmony to supply a gang of coalies!

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: Quote a friendly society. There are no Ancient Sons of Harmony in the friendly societies.

Mr. SEXTON: The hon. Member sat with me on the Consultative Committee of the National Health Insurance, and there was a society there which had not the exact title of the Ancient Sons of Harmony, but something very nearly related to it. He called my attention, when outside, to the fact that these people were applying for qualification under the National Health Insurance Act with this title. Let me put another case. I may be a little mixed in my titles, because there is such a multitude of friendly societies. I want him to imagine the Master Builders' Association going to the Antedeluvian Order of Buffaloes. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a friendly
society.] It is something like it in the title. Let us imagine the Master Builders' Association asking the Order of Buffaloes to supply them with a gang of builders' labourers. It is not possible for the friendly societies to comply with the provisions of this Act except by providing machinery that is competitive with the trade unions. If that happens, what becomes of the twin brothers when they fall out? They will fall out over this. The very moment you attempt to exercise the legal and proper functions of a trade union you come up against your twin brother in a very uncomfortable manner, and when twin brothers fall out employers generally get their own.
I come to the suggested Amendment of the Minister of Labour. I fail to see how that Amendment is going to help us out of the difficulty. The last time we discussed the Bill the Minister of Labour made a very important suggestion. May I express my sincere gratitude to him for the very able and impartial way he put the whole case? There is no doubt about the intention of the Government originally. They were opposed to the inclusion of friendly societies; but the right hon. Gentleman found himself in this difficulty: He had to say to himself, "The Committee has accepted the Amendment. I do not like it, but if I have to swallow it, then I must qualify it by putting in provisions that will safeguard me against any other element coming in." The right hon. Gentleman said in the debate on 2nd July that an Amendment had been put in, the object of which was to lay it down that if a friendly society sought this work it would be empowered
unless the society or association has such a system of obtaining from employers notification of vacancies for employment and giving notice thereof to its members when unemployed as is in the opinion of the Minister reasonably effective for that purpose."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1920, Vol. 131, Col. 969.]
Further on he said that he wished to leave out the words "that purpose," and to insert instead the words
securing that unemployed persons competent to undertake the particular class of work required, shall with all practicable speed be brought into communication with employers having vacancies to fill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1920, Vol. 131, Col. 970.]
Is that not the function of the trade unions? Is not that what happens to-
day to the employer? The only organisation in the country, outside the Labour Exchanges, which can effectively get in touch with employers is that of the trade union. Without any reflection on friendly societies, I say that if they provide machinery to enable them to do that, it is setting up the principle of the old Free Labour Association that we fought against so vigorously for ten or fifteen years. Take the case of the Shipping Federation. They set up an organisation similar to that suggested by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Sir A. Warren) and there was not a man who could put his foot on a ship or get a job on a ship unless he joined the Shipping Federation Labour Bureau.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: When did that take place? I am on the Executive Council of the Shipping Federation.

Mr. SEXTON: Before 1911. For at least ten or twelve years, no man could go on board a ship or get a job on board a ship unless he had the Shipping Federation tickets. I make that statement with the full knowledge of what I am saying. Yet we are condemned for using compulsion to make men join trade unions! There is something in it too, and I am not going to disguise it. We have to protect ourselves, and that is the method we have to adopt. I repeat that if such machinery is created by the friendly societies we are getting back to the days of the old Free Labour Associations. Whether they mean it or not that is going to be the effect of a society which never before exercised a function of this character doing the legitimate work of trade unionists. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Member in the best possible spirit to reconsider his decision for the sake of the relations that have existed in the past between friendly societies and trade unions. They have not the machinery. Their fear of losing members is not well founded. Under the 1911 Act there are three million trade unionists in the unemployment section, I assume that 50 per cent. were also members of friendly societies and I ask have they lost any of them. We have no proof of it. I want to see the friendly societies and the trade unions working together.

Sir A. WARREN: So they will.

Mr. SEXTON: I prophecy if they are determined to set up machinery which is
in opposition to trade unions, the relations which existed in the past are going to be severely strained. We have the promise that if a friendly society member joined a trade union they would make it easy for him to transfer. Hon. Members know that in 50 per cent. of the cases where men are in a particular society they will not take the trouble to bother about transfers. That is my experience and the experience of my colleagues. I would therefore again appeal to him to reconsider his decision. The case for the friendly societies was championed by the hon. Member for Maldon (Sir F. Flannery). He spoke as a trade unionist of long standing. May I respectfully remind him that he joined the trade union to which he yet belongs to protect his economic interests as an artisan and a craftsman. I have no doubt and in fact I know, as all who know him do, that as a craftsman at the bench he was very able and efficient, but the necessity for that no longer exists in his case and he has not to earn his living by it. His honorary membership is a credit to him, but it appears to me to be a case of

"The Devil was sick; the Devil a Monk would be.

The Devil was well; the Devil a monk was he."

He assumes the rôle of the candid friend to trade unions, which reminds me of Canning's very' effective lines:

"Give me the avow'd, the erect, the manly foe,

Bold I can meet—perhaps may turn his blow;

But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send,

Save, save, oh save me from the candid friend."

Mr. G. LOCKER - LAMPSON: I desire to support the friendly societies who want to administer the unemployment benefit in their own way. The hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) said that he was going to be brutally frank. I do not know that he has been brutal, but he has been excessively frank. It is perfectly plain what is the object of the trade unions, and that is to get a monopoly of the whole of this administration. I am not in the least hostile to trade unions, but I believe if we go back on the Amendment passed upstairs we shall deal an irreparable blow to the whole friendly society movement. If the trade unions get a monopoly of the administration of unemployment benefit—

Mr. SEXTON: They have it now.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Then they are absolutely certain to get a monopoly of the administration of sick insurance. Very few people will take the trouble to belong to two societies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: The hon. Member does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: You have the juvenile members coming along, and I do not believe they are going to take the trouble to join two societies, one for unemployment insurance and the other for sick insurance. Is it fair to deal this covert but deadly blow at the friendly societies? Already some of the trade unions—I do not say all or even the majority—are doing their best to have a monopoly of sick insurance. They are trying to force their members to pay sick insurance through the trade union approved society. I have got here the book of rules of the Ship Constructors' and Shipwrights' Association. I find that they are offering those who have been members for over five years and who take sick insurance with the trade union 3s. 6d. extra for the first week of unemployment benefit, and under five years they are offering 3s. 6d. extra for the first week of unemployment benefit. In the apprenticeship Clauses, members who agree to take sick insurance through the trade union will have 3s. extra for the first week. There are other provisions showing that the society are offering higher benefits to their members. There is a direct incentive to persons who already belong to friendly societies to leave the friendly society. A Committee has been appointed by the Government and is now sitting to inquire whether Labour Exchanges are to go or not. Under the Bill a person is able to obtain his unemployment benefit through a Labour Exchange. If that Committee agree that in the interests of the State Labour Exchanges had better be abolished, and if you also do not allow friendly societies to administer unemployment benefit, then trade unions will be the sole persons to administer unemployment benefit in the country. The whole of the employed population will have to take their unemployment benefit, unless they happen to contract
out, through the trade unions, and through the trade unions alone. The argument that friendly societies have not got machinery really cannot hold water. Hon. Members of the Labour party talk as though all the trade unions who are, going to administer unemployment benefit have the machinery, but there are several very large trade unions, who comprise members belonging to all sorts of occupations, and who have not got machinery, while some of them do not give unemployment benefit to-day, and in order to come under this Bill they will have to start unemployment benefit. Surely it is just as difficult for them to start the machinery for unemployment benefit as it is for the friendly societies. You have got the Federation of General Workers, and you have got the Workers' Union, both trade unions with members belonging to all sorts of different industrial classes, and it is just as difficult for that kind of trade union to set up the machinery as it is for the friendly societies.
Then what about the rural districts. Everybody knows that in the rural districts the trade unions have got practically no machinery at all, and that every single hamlet and village in the country has got a friendly society branch or lodge. Hon. Members may say that agriculture is not in this Bill, but under one of its provisions my right hon. Friend by his simple fiat can bring the whole of the agricultural population under the Bill within a few months. In that case I venture to say that the friendly societies have far greater facilities to work the Bill than the trade unions. But the chief argument in favour of what was done upstairs is this, that under the Bill the friendly societies have got to prove that they have got sufficient machinery for the whole purpose, and my right hon. Friend is not going to give any friendly society powers under the Bill unless he is absolutely assured that they have got machinery for the purpose. Therefore, I hope the House will not go back upon what was done upstairs and that they will support the friendly societies in this matter. It would be a very bad return for all the good work they have done in the past to scrap this great friendly society movement.

Mr. J. BELL: I have been wondering what is the real object of the desire to
bring the friendly societies into this Bill. I remember hearing the hon. Member who has just sat down attempt to make out a good case for industrial insurance societies being allowed to administer the benefits provided by this Bill, and in some of his arguments to-day, notably the one dealing with rural workers, if he had been arguing that because insurance societies had agents in every rural district they were in the best position to administer the benefits I could have understood him, but if rural workers are brought in surely trade unions cover rural districts just in the same way as friendly societies do. I do not know of any rural district in the country that trade unions do not cover, and I do know of rural districts where friendly societies are scarcely known. But I want to argue from a different point of view altogether. The question of importance under this Bill is not whether the provisions of the Bill are going to benefit trade unions or friendly societies, and I am very much afraid that those who are advocating that friendly societies should be brought in are not desirous of administering the benefits merely to present members of friendly societies, but that they are desirous of increasing the membership of friendly societies through the administration of the benefits provided by this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] If that is the motive behind it, I think the advocates might be candid enough to say so.
In administering the benefits of this Bill, this House ought to keep before its mind, not the benefit of the friendly societies or of the trade unions, but of the workers themselves, and I have always heard it argued, and am prepared to argue it myself, that one of the reasons for the alleged failure of the employment exchanges is the lack of co-operation between them and the trade unions representing the great masses of the workers of the country, so that I am very desirous that the State Department which is going to administer this Bill shall be left in a position of being able to co-operate with the organisations of the workpeople themselves, in which direction there is more to be hoped from the trade unions than from any other direction. What we want is efficient administration, and when we are talking about employers notifying societies of vacancies as they occur, I want the employing interests represented
in this House to ask themselves the question as to whether it is going to lead to efficient administration if we are going to require an employer to notify a dozen or a score of societies that he has vacancies, or if he has merely to notify the employment exchange and the trade unions who administer the benefits for their own members and who cover the particular trade for which the worker is required. I have some knowledge of the cotton trade. Supposing an employer wanted a weaver or a winder, who is the employer going to notify his vacancy to? Will it be to the friendly societies or to the trade union official who knows the exact type of worker that is wanted? Because there is a great deal of difference in these trades, and a winder will not do for all kinds of winding, nor will a weaver do for all kinds of weaving, and the employer wants the best workman when he has a vacancy. I do not believe that friendly societies can supply the right type of worker when an employer wants one, and, in the interests of the employers themselves, it is very dangerous to allow societies to come in and administer benefits under a Bill which is not going to work in the interests of the employers themselves. I have no fear that if the employers with whom I deal wanted a workman for which my union caters, the employers, knowing their business, would never notify a friendly society if they wanted a workman, but would go to the trade society who knew the right kind of worker they required, because they would expect—and rightly expect—to get the right type of worker for a particular vacancy.
When we are told, as we have been told, that friendly societies only desire to administer the benefits to those workpeople who are not members of a trade union. I think they give their whole case away, because if that is all they desire, I can see a number of situations arising. I am certain that in that case they are only going to cater for that class of workpeople who are less efficient in our industries, and who are least alive to their own interests, so that in that direction I do not think we have a great deal to fear, because I know employers want efficiency, and they will go to the organisations which supply the most efficient work-people. It is not in the interests of the employers, it is not in the interests of the
workers, and it is not in the interests of the friendly societies themselves. If friendly societies desire to enter into competition with trade unions, it will not be to the interest of friendly societies if trade unions reverse the position and begin to provide friendly society benefits. When it is said that some trade unions do not now pay unemployment benefits, and that, because they do not, friendly societies can do it as well as the trade unions, I would point out that trade unions now have the machinery for paying benefits to their members. It may not be unemployment benefit, but, even so, the trade unions have the knowledge of what is required in the different industries of the country.
1.0 P.M.
My last word will be in this direction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] As this interruption has driven a thought out of my head, I think that I shall be justified in going on talking until the thought comes back. We who know something about the business know that the greatest benefit which is going to be provided under this Bill is not, after all, the payment of the unemployed benefit. Friendly Societies may be able to provide that particular benefit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I shall not give over speaking any sooner because of cries of "Divide." Friendly societies, I say, may be able to pay the unemployment benefit, but the greatest benefit under this Bill will be to provide work for the unemployed worker as soon as it is possible, and when a complaint is brought to a trade union, as it will be, that somebody has been thrown out of work, and it is not their turn to pay the trade union officials will be the people they will appeal to, and I have an idea that if the friendly societies are administering the unemployment benefit, the trade union will not be so much concerned about filling the vacancy with a member of a friendly society as they will be to fill the vacancy from the membership of their own particular society, and I do not blame them. So that you will get competition between the two societies, and I do not think it is going to lend itself to the efficient working of this Bill. When it is a question of payment of benefit whilst unemployed, or filling vacancies, then I think all the arguments are on the side of the trade unions, who know something about industry, and
who are in a far better position to find the right kind of work. [Interruption.] I am being driven to the conclusion by these interruptions that there is a large section of this House who do not desire to hear anything said in favour of trade unions, and it it is to go to the country that the reason for this Bill is that the members of this House desire to strike a blow at trade unions, we are not going to quarrel with them; but it is because we want to do something of benefit to the workers, and make this Bill so that it will be in the interests of the workers, rather than in the interests of trade unions and friendly societies, that we desire to see this Amendment passed.

Mr. CASEY: I am bound to take the exactly opposite view from that put forward by the last speaker, and I am going to support the proposal that friendly societies should be permitted to administer this Bill in the same way as trade union organisations. I do not approach this question simply because I am a trade unionist or simply because I am a member of a friendly society organisation. The thing that appeals to me is this. We have had a great deal of control. We are clamouring for a great deal of that control to be taken off on the one hand, and, on the other hand, we have hon. Members who are endeavouring to tighten still more restriction and control on the neck of the individual. Really the time has come when we ought to have a large degree of toleration, when we ought to have fewer restrictions, when the individual ought to have full freedom of choice in deciding the organisation from which he shall obtain his benefits. As soon as you bring into operation compulsory organised industry—the moment that comes about—you have organised tyranny. What does the Amendment of my hon. Friend mean? It means that none of the friendly societies can administer this benefit. My own friendly society has paid out unemployed benefit. We have had a system by which, through the local Labour Exchange, we have put our unemployed men into employment as soon as possible. But if you are going to set up the idea that because a man is in a trade union it must of necessity bind him to join the system that it is desired to set up, you are simply robbing the man of his liberty. I will never be a party to that kind of system.
It was stated last week by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in dealing with the Act of 1911, that it seemed common-sense procedure that the friendly societies should pay the health benefit and the trade unions deal with the employment business. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) stated that he recognised there was much to be said for that, but that when the Bill of 1911 was before the House the trade unions forced the issue, and entered a sphere which was the prerogative of the friendly societies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) stated that he would ask the House honestly to face the issue as one of principle. Really, if it is one of principle to-day, was it not one of principle in relation to the Act of 1911? My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich agreed that the trade union movement to-day was going outside its sphere in demanding and claiming that they should administer the Act of 1911. if it was wrong then, why has it not been suggested that the trade unions should give up what was acknowledged to be wrong in 1911? The principle should be to allow an individual the right to choose. As a trade union official, I would advise the whole of my members to take their benefits through the trade unions. I would advise them so, but I am not going a step further than that. I am not going to say to them, "You must do as I tell you." Having given the advice, I am going to leave it to a man's own judgment, for, surely, we are not to treat men as if they were boys! You put upon a man some responsibility. A man does not want taking about by the hand all the days of his life. Men are surely intelligent and capable of thinking what is best for themselves. If a man decides in his own interests to take his benefits through the trade unions or the friendly societies, what does it matter to anyone else?
The Minister of Labour endeavoured to show that there would be considerable difficulty in filling the position and discharging the duties required under the provisions of this Act. He said the work would be onerous, and extremely complex in its character. It would require men of skill, practical knowledge; and even an apprenticeship to it. If my right hon. Friend will excuse me saying so
that argument is very thin indeed. Just imagine! Does it require practical knowledge, skill, and apprenticeship to advise a man where to go if he is out of work and wants work? The same thing applies to the trade union movement. You do not bring in these men simply because of their practical knowledge of one industry. Take the trade union of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting. In that organisation there is involved over 100 different trades. Do hon. Members mean to say that you are to have a man for every industry in his capacity as official for the union? If you are going to lay that down, that each official has to fit his particular job exactly, it follows that you must have 100 men especially in the machinery of the organisation. The expense of that I leave hon. Members to judge. Therefore, I hope in the interests of freedom of the individual, that this House will not look at this matter from the trade-union point of view or from the selfish point of view, but from that of giving freedom and liberty to the individual, so that he can determine for himself whether he will obtain the benefits from the trade unions or through the friendly societies.

Mr. R. YOUNG: I desire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."]—I am rather surprised that the House should be in such a hurry to come to a Division on this important matter, because you could not have a more important matter to discuss than that contained in the proposals now before the House. I am one of those who agree with the last speaker that we should not look at this question as much from the point of view of the trade union or the friendly societies as from the point of view of efficiency, and the point of view of the interests of the industries of our country. Some hon. Members when they rise to address this House give as a reason for their intervention in the discussion that they do not desire to give a silent vote. It is not that reason that makes me rise to-day. It is because I wish to say publicly what I have been saying in regard to a very large number of letters which I have received from friendly societies, not only in my own constituency but throughout the country. My reply to these communications has been that I could not support the inclusion of friendly societies in an Act for the purpose of administering unemployment
benefit, because it is not in the interests of the unemployed man himself. In saying so I do not impugn in any way the excellent work that has been done by the friendly societies in days gone by. I myself am a member of a friendly society, and have been so for thirty years. Many of the Members who sit on these benches are members of friendly societies. [An HON. MEMBER: "All."] They are particularly anxious, I assume, not only to safeguard the interests of these organisations to which they belong, but to do the best for their respective members in both organisations. But we cannot look at this proposal to-day without in some way casting our minds back to the introduction of the Act of 1911.
That Act was discussed in friendly societies and trade unions, and I expressed my views in the Amalgamated Society of Engineers' Journal in relation to the matter. I argued in those days that it would be a good thing if we could confine the unemployment benefit to the trade unions, and let the friendly societies deal with the health section alone. I did so because I believed that the trade unions' main function is industrial, and its main object is not so much to pay friendly society benefits as to secure satisfactory economic conditions for its members. Therefore, for that reason I hope the day will come when trade unions will not pay out sick benefit or unemployment benefit or superannuation benefit, because it ought to be the duty of the State to see that legitimate sickness is provided for, unemployment paid for, and old age safeguarded. If it was the intention of the 1911 Act when it was introduced to confine the payment of sickness benefit to friendly societies and confine trade unions to the unemployment benefit, there are obvious reasons why such a thing could not operate at the time.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Sir A. Warren) said that at that time the great friendly societies of the country claimed that this was also part of their job, and that if the argument was good in 1911 it is equally good to-day in regard to unemployment insurance benefit. But is it? What was the position of trade unions in 1911? They were not merely trade unions, but also friendly societies. Friendly societies in 1911 paid sick benefit, and
they had a large experience of that; in fact, the majority of the trade unions, if not a majority of trade unionists, were receiving sick benefit from their respective trade unions. Therefore, in the 1911 Act there was no difficulty in making arrangements for trade unions to administer the health side, but it is not so with unemployment. That is undoubtedly the special work of trade unions. It is concerned with it from day to day and week to week. That is not the special work of friendly societies, and it never was. Trade unions paid unemployment benefit because it enabled them to accomplish the main object of their being and enabled them to keep their members together when out of employment for the main purpose of securing the organisation for economic purposes. They had all the machinery to work the Unemployment Act. At the time the friendly societies had no machinery for the work and the State availed itself of the machinery of the trade unions.
The State said: "Here is machinery to our hand; the unemployment benefit must be paid, and we must utilise whatever machinery is possible." The only machinery that was possible was that which was worked by the trade unions. The object of a trade union is not merely to pay out unemployment benefit. Surely unemployment insurance is not merely a paying out of unemployment benefit. Trade unions were in the position to provide work for their members and to expedite the securing of employment for, those who are unfortunately unemployed. The employers used them for getting the men they required. Employers, through their managers or foremen, usually apply to the trade unionists inside the workshop through the secretary in order to get the kind of men they required, and if they could not get them in that way they would apply to the district secretary to find them the particular kind of men they required to fill their vacancies.
The State wisely took advantage of the machinery, but one difficulty presented itself which made labour exchanges absolutely necessary. It was that the trade unions, in contradiction of the statement which an hon. Member has made, did not desire to secure a monopoly of distributing unemployment benefit. They said, "We will use our machinery for our members to make our financial position
better, but we will not use our machinery for the purpose of paying unemployment benefit to non-union members." The result was that the labour exchanges were absolutely necessary to look after the portion of the industrial worker who up to the time were not inside a trade union. If hon. Members below the Gangway are anxious to do away with labour exchanges they will probably find the best means of doing it is to introduce Australian legislation which would make every man who is a worker indentify himself with some organisation connected with his industry. Friendly societies have no such machinery. The multiplication of unemployment agencies under different authorities must be expensive, and not only that, it would be confusing to employers and employed. I am astonished to hear, especially from these eloquent Members of the Coalition Party who are continually calling upon the Government to abolish Government departments, that they desire to create a new agency to deal with such an important matter as unemployment. The real thing to do is to co-ordinate and to consolidate so as to make it easy for unemployed men speedily to find employment. We are creating an agency which will seek to secure employment and to pay Unemployment Benefit to trade unionists through their Trade Unions. By introducing the Friendly Societies you will set up an agency for paying Unemployment Benefit to non-trade unionists and friendly society members, but they will fail to find them employment. Thirdly, you have the employment exchanges who will cater for men who are neither trade unionists nor friendly society members. You will have confusion and dissipation of energy at a time when it is absolutely necessary that any vacancy should be filled by the right man.
The Friendly Societies are asking for a share in the real work of the Employment Exchanges, but they have no machinery for the purpose, and, if they set it up, it will not be effective. All kinds of trades are represented in each branch of a Friendly Society. It is otherwise to a large extent with the Trade Unions. Many of them are specialised craft societies. In the new form of trade unionism, the organisation is still confined to an industry, and it is only in the unions of the unskilled that,
as a rule, you find a mixture of men working at different occupations. In every branch of a Friendly Society you have skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled men belonging to various industries. There is and there can be no specialisation whatever. Therefore, the work of the Employment Exchanges will not be in the least lessened by their administration of the Unemployment Benefit. It will only add to the expense of administering the benefit. The original intention of confining the payment of Unemployment Benefit to Trade Unions was undoubtedly best in the interests of the unemployed, the State, and the employer. The main function of insurance is not the paying out of benefits, but the securing of work for the unemployed. We insure ourselves against fire, but we make sure that there are agencies to prevent fire. We insure ourselves against burglary, but we expect the policeman to see that no burglary takes place. The Trade Unions provide the most effective machinery to get men into employment.
I have another reason to urge. Industrial disturbance may arise, and we have to safeguard ourselves against it. What will a Friendly Society know about industrial disputes when they take place? How will they be informed when an industrial dispute does take place and where it takes place? What will their secretaries know about trade conditions, district rates of wages, and things of that kind, a knowledge of which is absolutely necessary to fill up vacancies? What information will they be able to give their members in relation to stoppages? How will they prevent their members going to a certain place and getting employment and thus upsetting the whole industry by a breach of the Act. I can see appeals to the Referee or Umpire, but, bad as all that may be, a dead-lock between employers and employed would be a much more serious thing. The employers in the main will ignore the organisation which cannot provide them with suitable men. It has been pointed out that by extending this opportunity to Friendly Societies you will create new Trade Unions. You must of necessity do so. They cannot use their funds on the health side for unemployment purposes, and they will have to create an unemployment fund. They will have to give increased benefits to
operate the Act, and, as a result, new Trade Unions will be created and will come into competition with the present Trade Unions, thus creating disturbance and ill-feeling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I do not intend to sit down under these conditions. I do not rise very often, but I intend to express my opinion on this matter. There was an attempt to silence the previous speaker on this side, but when a speaker on the other side rose, he received infinite courtesy both from hon. Members and from these benches. Now that we express the opinions which we hold as the result of years and years of experience in our trade unions, hon. Members say "Divide," and call upon us to sit down. I am not going to sit down until I have finished my remarks, unless, Sir, you order me to do so. I shall not take my orders from anybody else. I want to say a word in relation to the speech made by my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Sir Fortescue Flannery). No one appreciates more than I do the excellent service that in days gone by he rendered to the trade union to which he and I belonged. I would not decry or in the least belittle what he has done. He drew our attention to a letter which has been issued by a trade union secretary. I want also to refer to that letter. It says:
Dear Sir and Brother,—I find upon going through our books that you are not a member of our approved society, and, as we are desirous that all members of the trade union should be insured through us, I am sending you the necessary forms of application for transfer, which I hope you will fill up and return to me.
His own comment on that was:
That is to say, will you come out of the friendly society? Will you join the Amalgamated Society of Watermen and Lighter-men, because they believe that they and they alone should have the right of administering this benefit under the new Unemployment Insurance Act.
What is wrong with that letter? He says he believes in competition. This trade union is pointing out to its member that he can have these benefits under trade union supervision. This has nothing whatever to do with the Bill before the House. It deals with machinery already in operation. It is a request that instead of having two sick visitors, visiting a man each week, one sick visitor dealing with health matters is sufficient to pay out the
benefits and safeguard the interests of the man. It has no reference to unemployment. It only has reference to sick benefit. It has been said that the real question here is, are the friendly societies to have a share in the administration of these Acts and are they to continue to exist. There are many excellent institutions which ultimately become moribund. As one who believes that this work can be done by two organisations better than by three, I would gladly as a member of a friendly society allow an institution which I thought was played out come to an end. Nobody has stated the real facts which underlie that question. The Government, rightly or wrongly, in 1911, insured young persons at 16 years of age and when they joined their trade unions they naturally joined them also for unemployment and sick benefit. As a result of that young life is not going into the friendly societies as it did before that time. Surely that is no reason for introducing inefficient methods into the machinery regulating the employment of men. I am one of those who do not desire to enter into any heated discussion either here or anywhere else, with members of friendly societies on this matter. I believe it is in the interests of the unemployed man himself, and in the interests of the State as a whole, as well as in the interests of industrial peace that there should be machinery whereby one can go direct to the organisation that can supply at the earliest possible moment the man capable to do the work that is needed to be done. That is not the case with friendly societies. They will have to build up new machinery, they will have to create new or separate trade unions, and as a result there will be friction between men in the industry and greater friction and greater trouble between organised labour on the one hand and organised employers on the other. Therefore I submit that the Amendment moved by my right hon. friend below me is one that should be carried in the interests of industrial peace.

Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word
'or ' ['or any other'] stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 44.

Division No. 197.]
AYES.
[1.40 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Galbraith, Samuel
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Atkey, A. R.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Pearce, Sir William


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Gilbert, James Daniel
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Perkins, Walter Frank


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Glyn, Major Ralph
Perring, William George


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Barnston, Major Harry
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Barrand, A. R.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Greig, Colonel James William
Prescott, Major W. H.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Gretton, Colonel John
Purchase, H. G.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Ramsden, G. T.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. Gr'nw'h)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)


Betterton, Henry B.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Remnant, Sir James


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Royden, Sir Thomas


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Blair, Reginald
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Hinds, John
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanders, Colonel Sir H. Robert A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hood, Joseph
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Briant, Frank
Howard, Major S. G.
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hunter-Weston, Lieut-Gen. Sir A. G.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)


Bruton, Sir James
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Burdett-Coutts, William
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Stevens, Marshall


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Johnstone, Joseph
Stewart, Gershom


Butcher, Sir John George
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydv11)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Sugden, W. H.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Carr, W. Theodore
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Sutherland, Sir William


Casey, T. W.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Kiley, James D.
Taylor, J.


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Vickers, Douglas


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Wallace, J.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lorden, John William
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lort-Williams, J.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Whitla, Sir William


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Mallalieu, F. W.
Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Manville, Edward
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Dawes, James Arthur
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Matthews, David
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Duncannon, Viscount
Mitchell, William Lane
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Morrison, Hugh
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Mosley Oswald
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Mount, William Arthur
Winterton, Major Earl


Fell, Sir Arthur
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Fildes, Henry
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Neal, Arthur
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Foreman, Henry
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Forrest, Walter
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Sir A. Warren and Sir J. Fortescue Flannery.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.



NOES.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Bromfield, William
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)


Donald, Thompson
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Simm, M. T.


Edge, Captain William
M'Guffin, Samuel
Sitch, Charles H.


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Grundy, T. W.
Mills, John Edmund
Spoor, B. G.


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Swan, J. E.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Myers, Thomas
Tillett, Benjamin


Hayday, Arthur
O'Grady, Captain James
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Hirst, G. H.
Parker, James
Wignall, James


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Irving, Dan
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Jesson, C.
Royce, William Stapleton



Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Seddon, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kenyon, Barnet
Sexton, James
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Lawson, John J.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after "1911" ["approved under the National Insurance Act, 1911"], to insert the words "or bodies ancillary thereto."
The object of this Amendment is merely to meet a technical difficulty. It is purely supplementary to the decision to which the House has just come, and I rather think the Government will accept it.

Mr. STEVENS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CLYNES: I certainly cannot accept the interpretation which the hon. Member has given of the effect of these words if they were included in this Clause. I regard them as extremely dangerous. The House had before it a definite matter for decision, and has decided it in a definite manner, and I do not think that either of the organisations, that is to say, either the friendly societies or the trade unions or the State, should be exposed to the difficulties which would be created by the addition to the Clause of such words as these. How do we know that what are called the great collecting societies would not claim that they come within these words? Surely, the House and the Government ought to content themselves with the definite decision which has been reached, without exposing the whole set of organisations to the dangers that lie behind these words.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I think my right hon. Friend is over-estimating the importance of the words. As regards the industrial insurance companies, they are specifically out, and I think my right hon. Friend will see that these words cannot bring

them in. There is very little more in them than the making perfectly clear, now that the main position has been admitted by the House, of a point which was a little obscure. There are at the present time three classes of approved societies. Under the Insurance Act of 1911 there are the societies and other bodies which were established before the Act came into operation, and which were approved at that time, whether they were trade unions or friendly societies; and there is the friendly society which, while not approved as a whole, has a separate section approved for the purpose of dealing specially with insurance. Then there is the entirely new class of society set up by the Health Insurance Act. There is certainly no doubt with regard to the first two, and I think that, as regards the third, namely, the class set up under the Health Insurance Act, there would not be much difficulty about them, provided that they satisfy the conditions of the Clause—this is very important, and I hope my hon. Friend has not overlooked it—in regard to their qualifications for the exercise of the powers which the House has now decided to give them. These words are really not dangerous. My right hon. Friend knows, of course, that these societies have to pay unemployed benefit out of their own funds, to the extent of one-third of the State benefit, and they have to be societies of employed persons. They must satisfy all the conditions precedent which the approved society has to satisfy. I confess I do not see why, the main position having been admitted by the House, these words should not be added.

Question put, "That the words 'or bodies ancillary thereto' be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 47.

Division No. 198.]
AYES.
[1.55 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.


Amery, Lieut.-Cel. Leopold C. M. S.
Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Barnston, Major Harry


Atkey, A. R.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perring, William George


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Hinds, John
Prescott, Major W. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hood, Joseph
Ramsden, G. T.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hopkins, John W. W.
Royden, Sir Thomas


Brittain, Sir Harry
Howard, Major S. G.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bruton, Sir James
Hunter-Weston, Lieut-Gen. Sir A. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Butcher, Sir John George
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Campbell, J. D. C.
Johnstone, Joseph
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Carr, W. Theodore
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Casey, T. W.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Stevens, Marshall


Coats, Sir Stuart
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stewart, Gershom


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sugden, W. H.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Sutherland, Sir William


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lorden, John William
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lort-Williams, J.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Taylor, J.


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Mallalieu, F. W.
Vickers, Douglas


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Manville, Edward
Wallace, J.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Matthews, David
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Fildes, Henry
Mitchell, William Lane
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Molson, Major John Elsdale
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Whitla, Sir William


Foreman, Henry
Murchison, C. K.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Forestier-Walker, L.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Forrest, Walter
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Neal, Arthur
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Galbraith, Samuel
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Winterton, Major Earl


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)



Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pearce, Sir William
Mr. G. Locker-Lampson and Sir A. Warren.


NOES.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Simm, M. T.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Kenyon, Barnet
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, William
Lawson, John J.
Spoor, B. G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Swan, J. E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Mills, John Edmund
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Dawes, Commander
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Tillett, Benjamin


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Myers, Thomas
Wignall, James


Grundy, T. W.
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Parker, James
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Seddon, J. A.



Irving, Dan
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jesson, C.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. T. Griffiths.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, b) after the word "of" ["has such a system of"], to insert the words "ascertaining the wages and conditions prevailing in every employment within the meaning of this Act in which its members are engaged and of."
2.0 p.m.
This will have the effect of requiring the friendly societies, in order to carry out the purpose they have in view in administering the Act, to provide what might be termed machinery to ascertain the wages and conditions prevailing in different em-
ployments throughout the country. This would apply not merely to friendly societies but to all the organisations wishful to administer the provisions of the Act. I doubt whether any serious opposition can be offered to the Amendment by all those who have claimed so strongly the right of the friendly societies to undertake these new and I think very serious duties. The decision we have just reached has definitely turned the friendly societies of the country into organisations which must now undertake new and definitely industrial duties. The friendly societies were never created for that purpose. The trade unions existed definitely for that purpose. They undertook as trade unions to pay benefits not because they wished to but because until quite recent years the State showed no inclination to undertake that duty. We do not want a monopoly in respect of this work of administration. We would prefer as trade unions to have nothing whatever to do with the payment of unemployment benefit. We want to throw upon the State and upon industry and, therefore, in no sense to maintain a monopoly of this great task of administering unemployment benefit. It has been alleged against us that we want a monopoly. The purpose of this Amendment is not to get for the trade unions any monopoly but to establish a state of equality as between the friendly societies and the trade unions in respect of the necessary apparatus and provision for administering unemployment benefit.
We do not fear the competition of any other organisation so long as the associations or organisations have to admin-such a benefit and discharge such duties. Indeed it is certain that a great disservice has been done to the friendly societies. It is certain that in a year or two in the opportunities of conflict that will be set up between the friendly societies and the trade unions, the trade unions will numerically benefit very largely. What will happen in the wrokshops and in the meeting rooms of these associations will be that the very process of industrial conflict will drive into the trade union organisations persons who might otherwise remain outside. Whatever views we may entertain on these aspects of the question, I hope the House now that they have given the right to undertake these duties to certain organisations will also
require those organisations to provide themselves with the necessary means fos ascertaining conditions as to rates of wages and matters generally covering the question of employment, which interest and concern a workman whenever he has been asked to undertake a particular job. The friendly societies declare that they can take steps to find work for a man. In view of the trouble which so often arises on questions of wages and conditions of employment it is essential in order to avoid conflict that the workman should have some knowledge of the kind of job and the conditions of service and the rates of pay before he approaches any employer in order to enter into an arrangement with him. Accordingly, I move this Amendment to bring about the necessary conditions.

Sir J. BUTCHER: The object as far as friendly societies are concerned, is that they should be made effective for the purpose of distributing unemployment benefit to their members. Therefore, to anyone who supports the friendly societies, the wording of this Amendment appears to go far beyond the necessities of the case. It says, in substance, that a friendly society before they can be approved by the Minister for the administration of this part of the Act should have the means of ascertaining the wages and conditions of labour prevailing in every employment within the meaning of the Act in which their members are engaged. Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean that a friendly society in the South of England for the purpose of administering benefit there must know the conditions of employment on the Clyde or throughout Scotland, or that they should know the conditions of employment in Belfast or Cork, or in other places to which their members never go or never want to go? The House has carried by an immense majority this provision for enabling friendly societies to administer unemployment benefits to their members. I am sure there is no desire, at any rate I hope not, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to nullify the decision of the House and make it impossible for the friendly societies to carry out the duty which the House has just thrown upon them. I am sure the Minister of Labour has no such intention. What he wants is to make the friendly societies reasonably effective for carrying out the duties which they have undertaken. If these
words in their present width and vagueness are put in, you would throw upon friendly societies duties which even the trade unions themselves could not carry out, and which it would be perfectly unreasonable to expect them to perform. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it would be necessary for a friendly society operating in a rural district in southern England with members in the area looking for employment suitable to that in which they have been engaged, to know all the conditions of employment and wages on the Clyde and in Ireland? It is not necessary or reasonable. No doubt some members of the large friendly societies such as the Manchester Unity might be engaged on the Clyde, but in order to obtain employment for rural members in the South of England it seems to me absurd that the society should have full knowledge of conditions and wages in Cork, or on the Clyde. I take it that the Minister in the interests of carrying out the duties which the House of Commons by this enormous majority has decided to put upon friendly societies will, if he does insert words, introduce them to such a reasonable extent that they can be carried out.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Does the hon. and learned Member (Sir J. Butcher) seriously suggest that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to impose an obligation upon friendly societies which you could not impose upon trade unions? The obligation here is common to anybody who becomes our agent under this Act. It does not matter to me, now that the House has taken its decision, whether a trade union or a friendly society or bodies ancillary thereto are concerned. If they are to be effective instruments they must be able to get the man in want of a job into touch with the job for which he is wanted. This provision is not directed against friendly societies. It is made in the hope that we shall not start with a defective Act and five or ten years hence find that the whole structure has to be revised. The first object of the Bill is not the paying of unemployment benefit, but to see that there is effective touch between the agency and the man in want of a job. The right hon. Gentleman in this Amendment makes it a condition precedent to becoming our agent under Clause 17, that the society or organisation must be in a position to ascertain the wages and conditions prevailing in every employment
in which its members are engaged. That means that they must not only be an instrument for paying benefit, which is, after all, a simple thing, but they must be in a position to find employment. I propose to accept this Amendment. I propose to strengthen it later on by additions of my own at the end of this Subsection. If we are going to get this to work properly, is it unreasonable to say that they must have from the employer the sort of thing that you have in the Fair Wages Resolution? Otherwise they do not know whether they are sending a man to a post for which he is qualified or to a post in which there will be proper conditions. I admit that it is not easy for them, but it is equally difficult for any other organisation.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I am not suggesting that you should impose one obligation on a trade union and another on a friendly society, but only that the obligations imposed on both should be reasonable and such as are required for the purpose in view.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that it is unreasonable, and, at any rate, it is imposed on both. If we are going to make this an effective instrument we must make it efficient for finding a job for the man out of work, and this is one of the things that are required.

Mr. G. ROBERTS: From what has been said my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) will get an idea of the difficulties which will confront friendly societies. This imposes no more liability in principle on friendly societies than on trade unions, but there is this distinction. A trade union deals mainly with one class of labour. A friendly society will have to deal with every class of labour in the community. This means that a trade union will require simply to have the information respecting one trade in all parts of the country. A printer in the south of England will require to know whether there is a vacancy in Belfast or anywhere else, because it is not our purpose to pay society benefit, but to find work for a man who is out of work, and we claim the right to remove him to any part of the country where work will be found. A friendly society has got to deal with every class of labour, and this means that the Ancient Order of Foresters and the Manchester Unity will have to, set up machinery com-
parable to that now possessed by the Ministry of Labour. It means duplication throughout the whole of the country. Sometimes complaint is made against the Ministry of Labour that the Labour Exchange system has become swollen and extravagant. I am afraid that hon. Members have not yet realised the enormous extravagance involved in the determination which has just been taken. We have got to keep in mind that this is not merely a question of dispersing benefit, but a question of taking part in the national organisation of trade, to be able to increase the fluidity of labour, and to move men from districts where there is no employment to districts where work is provided. We have got to have regard not merely to friendly societies or trade unions, but to the efficient administration of out-of-work benefit, and, while it is not competent for me to discuss a decision which has just been reached, I am sure that my friends of the friendly societies will find that the attitude which I took last week was the correct one, because this involves them in such detailed and complex administration that they will find themselves incapable of carrying it out.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: While agreeing with a great deal of what my right hoe. Friend has said, I would point out that we are not putting any burden on friendly societies, as they are not obliged to undertake this work. We are concerned simply with preventing an absolute monopoly in the disposal of Government grants. At any rate, we were faced with the desire expressed by a large body of people who felt that they were being shut out of advantages which they considered that they ought to have under this Act. I am not here to say whether it is an advantage or not to take it up, but I am quite sure that in that case we will save the risk of injustice to them. But now we have got to avoid the risk of injustice to the worker. I heartily support my right hon. Friend in this Amendment and in the one that follows. He makes it as sure as legislation possibly can that only those qualified to administer grants shall be employed as agents to do so. That is the same policy as was followed in the National Health Insurance Act, and it is the right policy in this case. If
the friendly societies feel this a burden I hope that they will not undertake it. Those who are able to undertake it for the benefit of the worker ought to be protected against others who would do it in an imperfect way which brings not only distress and trouble to those concerned but brings discredit on legislation which only too often happens in these pioneer Acts and which we must try to avoid as far as we possibly can.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: May I ask is it competent for friendly societies to obtain information through local labour exchanges? As they are under the right hon. Gentleman, I may take it that the information which they will give is satisfactory.

Dr. MACNAMARA: They must go to the fountain head, the employers, to obtain their information.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), to leave out the words "that purpose" and to insert instead thereof the words
securing that unemployed persons competent to undertake the particular class of work required shall with all practicable speed be brought into communication with employers having vacancies to fill.
This makes as sure as we can that those who propose to be our agents shall do this side of the work effectively.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (5) after the word "association" ["association of employed persons"] insert the words "for the benefit."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

CLAUSE 18.—(Power to provide for insurance against unemployment in any industry by means of special scheme.)

(3) Where no special scheme has been made with respect to an industry by a joint industrial council or association of employers and employees and approved by the Minister, the Minister after consultation with the joint industrial council or with persons representing the employers and employees who would be affected by the scheme may himself by special order make a special scheme with respect to that industry.

(4) Where a special scheme is in force, the employed persons to whom the scheme applies shall not be liable to become or to continue to be insured under the general provisions of this Act, and subject to the provisions of this Act, shall not be entitled to unemployment benefit.

(5) Where a special scheme is in force, there shall, subject to compliance with the prescribed conditions, be paid to the body charged with the administration of the scheme in every year out of moneys provided by Parliament such sum as the Minister, in view of the estimated income and expenditure under the scheme, may by regulations made by him with the consent of the Treasury determine but not exceeding in any event one-tenth of the amount, calculated in the prescribed manner, which would, if the scheme had not been in force, have been paid by way of contributions under the general provisions of this Act from employers and employed persons in respect of the employed persons to whom the scheme applies.

(6) A special scheme may apply for the purposes of the scheme, with or without modification, any of the provisions of this Act, and may contain such other provisions, including provisions for the constitution of a body to be charged with the administration of the scheme and with respect to the supervision of the administration of the scheme and accounts, and, subject to the consent of the Treasury, with respect to the investment of funds and audit, as the Minister considers to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the scheme and to the provisions of this section:

Provided that a body constituted for the purpose of a special scheme shall not, except with the consent of the Minister, undertake any duties other than duties under the scheme.

(7) A special scheme shall, when approved or made by the Minister, have effect as if enacted in this Act and shall continue in force until determined in accordance with the provisions thereof, and the Minister may at any time, in the case of a special scheme made by a joint industrial council or an association of employers and employees on the application of the council or association, and in the case of a scheme made by himself after consultation with persons representing employers and employees affected by the scheme, by special order vary or amend the provisions of a scheme made under this section.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (3) to insert a new Sub-section—
(4) A special scheme should not apply to any person other than persons who are employed persons within the meaning of this Act.
The object of this is to make clear that persons who do not come within the purview of the general scheme, boys and girls under 16, agricultural labourers and domestic servants, should not be brought in under the special part of the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (4), after the word "not"
["applies shall not be liable"], insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Act"; leave out the words "and subject to the provisions of this Act," and insert thereof the word "or."

In Sub-section (5) leave out the word "one-tenth" and insert instead thereof the word "three-tenths."

Leave out the words "from employers and employed persons" and insert instead thereof the words "out of moneys pro vided by Parliament."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (6), to leave out the words "Provided that a body constituted for the purpose of a special scheme shall not, except with the consent of the Minister, undertake any duties other than duties under the scheme."

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am prepared to accept the Amendment. The words were inserted because of fears expressed by approved societies. The conditions having changed, the words appear to be no longer necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: At the end of Sub-section (6) add the words, "but such consent as aforesaid shall not be withheld in any case where a special scheme is constituted by an association of employers and employees."—[Mr. T. Griffiths.]

In Sub-section (6), after the words last inserted, add the words "The general provisions of this Act shall not, except in so far as they are applied by a special scheme, apply to, or have effect in relation to or for the purposes of, any special scheme or the persons insured thereunder."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (7), to insert a new Sub-section—
(8) Where a special scheme for any industry comes into force on or before the first day of the first complete insurance year next after the commencement of this Act there shall be paid out of the unemployment fund to the body charged with the administration of the scheme such sum as may be determined to be approximately equivalent to the amount of the contributions paid by employers and employed persons during the period between the commencement of this Act and the date on which the scheme comes into force in respect of employed persons while employed in the industry together with such sum as may be determined to be approximately equivalent
to the amount to which, having regard to the number of the contributions aforesaid, the body charged with the administration of the scheme would if the scheme had been in force during the period aforesaid have been entitled under Sub-section (5) of this section, after deducting a sum to be determined to be approximately equivalent to the amount paid or payable out of the unemployment fund to employed persons in the industry at any time before they cease to be entitled to benefit under the general provisions of this Act, together with such sum as may be determined to be approximately equivalent to the rateable part of the costs of administering the general provisions of this Act.
In this Sub-section the expression "determined" means determined in accordance with regulations made under this Act by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury.
This Amendment is intended to deal with the position which will arise if a special scheme is not ready to come into operation at the date of the commencement of the Act. Let us assume that this Bill is passed by the end of this month. I hope very much it will not be delayed later, because otherwise it will be quite impossible to get in order the vast amount of administrative machinery and the millions of books and stamps for floating efficiently this great scheme. The date I shall be compelled to suggest is 8th November, and that will allow a period of only three months after the passing of the Act for the societies to prepare their schemes. They ought to be allowed to do the work circumspectly, and to complete the arrangements with care. If they find it impossible to prepare their schemes by 8th November, this Amendment meets the situation that would arise. I propose that the latest date by which a special scheme may be set up, in order to secure the advantage of this provision, shall he the end of the first insurance year, 3rd July, 1921.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I have not read this Amendment, but may we take it that the insured person is not going to lose by this later date being put into the Bill?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not see how he can.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "during the period between the commencement of this Act and the date on which," and to insert instead thereof the words "prior to"
The proposed Amendment will only come into operation from the date when the Act becomes law. I have here the report of the actuary as to unemployment insurance, in which he states that there were accumulated funds of £19,000,000 and, with the interest, there will be at the end of the year about £20,000,000 partly paid by the employers and partly by the employed in different industries of the country. When these schemes are going to be provided between industrial councils or employers and workmen we want the Minister to give us a portion of that £20,000,000 because it is the money of the employers and workmen. That would enable the Federation of the Steel Trade, which extends from Scotland to Wales, to have a nucleus in the formation of a scheme to deal with an employment and possibly with accident and other benefit. In order to make that scheme successful, and it is already being discussed, we ought to get a part of that £20,000,000. We want the Minister to deduct administrative expenses and the monies that have been paid out for unemployment. Employers are taking far more responsibility than they did in days previous to the War in so far as the interests of the workmen are concerned, and they are beginning to realise that they must look after the employed side of the industry and the accident side, and generally as to the welfare of the men. All this will cost money, and seeing that we have got these funds at our disposal I think from the standpoint of justice this should be dated from 1911 in so far as our industry and other industries are concerned.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sure my hon. Friend realises that his proposal would enormously widen the scope of the Amendment, which covers the period from the date of the commencement of the Bill until the date on which the special scheme comes into force. My hon. Friend asks us to go back to 1911 which would have the effect of upsetting the whole financial basis of the Bill. His proposal is in effect a negation of the principle of insurance. I really cannot in a proposal to cover the period between the passing of the Act and the coming into force of the special scheme agree to the suggestion that I should carry my proposal right back to the Act of 1911. I could not do so under any possible circumstances.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 20.—(Supplementary schemes).

(4) A body constituted for the purpose of a supplementary scheme shall not, except with the consent of the Minister, undertake any duties other than duties under the scheme.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (4).

Dr. MACNAMARA: I agree.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 25.—(Repayment in certain cases of part of contributions paid by employed persons.)

(1) If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister by any person who is or has been an insured contributor or by his personal representatives that that person has paid contributions in accordance with the general provisions of this Act in respect of not less than the required number of weeks, and that he has, or had before his death, reached the age of sixty, he or his representatives, shall be entitled to be repaid out of the unemployment fund the amount if any by which the total amount of those contributions has exceeded the total amount received by him out of the unemployment fund, together with compound interest at the rate of two and a half per centum per annum calculated in the prescribed manner and as if a proportionate part of the amount of the excess had become due at the end of each calendar year next after the date on which the first contribution was paid by him.
For the purpose of the foregoing provision the expression 'the required number of weeks means in the case of an insured contributor who, at the time when contributions first became payable in respect of him, was over the age of fifty-five, five hundred weeks reduced by fifty weeks for every year or part of year by which his age at that time exceeded fifty-five, and in the case of any other insured contributor, five hundred weeks.
(2) Repayment to an insured contributor under this Section shall not affect his liability to pay contributions under this Act, and if after any such repayment he becomes entitled to unemployment benefit he shall, for the purpose of ascertaining the period during which he is to be entitled to benefit, be treated as having paid in respect of the period for which the repayment was made the full number of contributions which is most nearly equal to five-eighths of the number of contributions actually paid during that period.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "contributions" ["amount of those contributions"], to insert the Words
exclusive of any contributions refunded under any of the provisions of this Act or of any regulations made thereunder.
This is a drafting Amendment. It secures that no repayment under this Clause will be made in respect of contributions refunded under other provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Sub section (1), leave out the words "out of the unemployment fund" ["received by him out of the unemployment fund'], and insert instead thereof the words "by way of unemployment benefit."

Leave out the word "calendar," and insert instead thereof the word "insurance."

After the word "him" [first contribution was paid by him"], insert the words, "Provided that where any insured contributor has at any time ceased for a period of five insurance years to be an insured contributor, no account shall, for the purpose of the foregoing provision, be taken of any contributions paid in respect of him before the last such period."

After the word "contributions" ["time when contributions"], insert the words "being contributions of which account is to be taken for the purpose of the foregoing provisions."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "equal" ["equal to five-eighths"], to insert the words "in the case of men to three-fifths and in the case of women."
This Amendment is consequential upon the alteration of rates of contribution.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How about some Amendments I wish to move later on equalising the contributions for men and women? If this Amendment be accepted, will that be used as an argument against the acceptance of mine?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should not use it as an argument. I am here taking out the employed person's contribution and then speaking of it in different fractions, and I do not see how that raises the question of equalising the contributions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I take it that this Amendment means they do not take out the same benefit at the
end of 60 years, whereas by the original Bill they did.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No, they never did.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.— (Outdoor relief.)

In determining whether outdoor relief shall or shall not be granted to a person in receipt of or entitled to receive unemployment benefit or benefit under a special or supplementary scheme, the authority having power to grant the relief shall not take into account any such benefit except in so far as it exceeds seven shillings and sixpence a week.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to move, to leave out the words "seven shillings and sixpence" and to insert instead thereof the words "ten shillings."

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I accept.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 32.—(Provisions as to birth and marriage certificates.)

Where for the purposes of this Act, the age or marriage of any person is required to be proved by the production of a certificate of birth, or a certificate of marriage, any person shall, on presenting a written requisition in such form and containing such particulars as may be from time to time prescribed by the Minister of Health, the Scottish Board of Health, or the Local Government Board for Ireland, as the case may be, and, on payment of a fee in the case of a birth certificate of sixpence, and in the case of a marriage certificate of one shilling, be entitled to obtain a certified copy of the entry of the birth or marriage, as the case may be, of that person in the register of births or the register of marriages, as the case may be, under the hand of the registrar or superintendent registrar or other person having the custody thereof, and forms for such requisition shall on request be supplied without any charge by every registrar of births and deaths, and by every superintendent registrar or other person having the custody of the register.

Amendments made: Leave out the words "or marriage" ["age or marriage"] and insert instead thereof the words "marriage or death."

Leave out the words "or a certificate of marriage" and insert instead thereof the words "marriage or death."

After the word "marriage" ["case of a marriage"] insert the words "or death."

Leave out the words "or marriage"
["entry of the birth or marriage"] and insert instead thereof the words "marriage or death."

Leave out the words "or the register of marriages" and insert instead thereof the words "marriages or death."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

CLAUSE 38.—(Special provisions as to the mercantile marine.)

The Minister may, after consultation with the Board of Trade, make Regulations under this Act modifying in such manner as he thinks proper the provisions of this Act in their application to masters, seamen, and apprentices to the sea service and sea fishing service, and in particular, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, and such Regulations may provide:—

(a) for the exclusion from this Act of any masters, seamen, or apprentices who are neither domiciled nor have a place of residence in the United Kingdom, and for the payment by the employers or such masters, seamen, or apprentices of contributions at the same rates as would have been payable if the masters, seamen or apprentices had been employed persons within the meaning of this Act;
(b) for the administration in the prescribed manlier of the funds arising from the contributions paid by employers in respect of masters, seamen, or apprentices who are exempt from the provisions of this Act, and for the objects towards which any such funds may be applied.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, after the word "Trade" ["with the Board of Trade to insert the words, "in the case of mercantile seamen, or with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, or the Secretary for Scotland or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, as the case may be, in the case of fishermen."

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that this Amendment is not necessary. The effect would be that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Secretary for Scotland, or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, as the case might be, would have to be consulted as to fishermen and the Board of Trade as to mercantile seamen. The position with regard to the jurisdiction of these three separate Departments is generally this. The Board of Trade jurisdiction roughly is the ad-
ministration of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which applies to fishermen, while the jurisdiction of the other Departments may include matters affecting actual fishing operations and the general welfare of the men in the industry. Broadly, the Board of Trade has jurisdiction over fishermen as seamen, and the other Departments have jurisdiction over them as fishermen. The Amendment makes a distinction between mercantile seamen and fishermen. The Clause only relates to sea fishermen, and not to other fishermen, and sea fishermen are nearly all seamen under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. I will give this undertaking, that the Departments other than the Board of Trade will in practice be consulted. Under those circumstances, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move to leave out the words "regulations under this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "a special order."
3.0 P.M.
I put this Amendment on the Paper because of representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Sir T. Royden) and other hon. Members who, in the Amendment which immediately follows mine, desire to provide that under this Clause there shall be applied the limitation of Clause 16 as regards contributions. I go further in my second and third Amendment, and I make it clear that we do not in this Clause intend to vary contributions at all, and, therefore, from that point of view, I give my hon. Friend more than he asks. In the latter part of his Amendment my hon. Friend asks that, "No Regulations under this Section shall be deemed to be valid until they have been approved by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament." I really cannot agree to that. It is making what I submit, with great respect, is an impracticable proposal. A special Order is far better than Regulations to this extent, that a public inquiry can be held if objection is raised, and an Order can lie for a certain number of days. I have met my hon. Friend on the other two Amendments, and I hope he will be satisfied.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

After the word "Act" ["provisions of this Act in their application"] insert the words "[other than provisions determining the rates of contributions]."

Leave out the word "regulations" ["any such regulations may"] and insert instead thereof the words "special order."

In paragraph (a) after the word "payable" ["as would have been payable if "] insert the words "by them as employers' contributions."

In paragraph (b) leave out the word "exempt" ["who are exempt from"] and insert instead thereof the word "ex eluded."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

CLAUSE 39.—(Application of Act in the case of the Crown and of reservists or territorials during training.)

(1) This Act shall apply to persons employed by or under the Crown to whom this Act would apply if the employer were a private person, except to such of those persons as are serving in an established capacity in the permanent service of the Crown, subject, however, to such modifications as may be made therein by Order in Council for the purpose of adapting the provisions of this Act to the case of such persons.

(2) Where a man of the naval reserves, the army reserve, the air force reserve, or the territorial force, is being trained and is in receipt of pay out of the moneys provided by Parliament for the navy, army, or air force services, and immediately before his training was an employed person within the meaning of this Act, he shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed while so training to be an employed person in the service of the Crown.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Crown" ["in the permanent service of the Crown"], to insert the words "or having been granted certificates by the Civil Service Commissioners are serving a probationary period preliminary to establishment."
This Amendment, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) takes an interest, as I gather from an Amendment in his name on the Paper, is an Amendment approved by the Treasury, the Post Office and other Government Departments to cover certain classes of civil servants, who, though not technically established, are to be treated as substantially in that
position for the purposes of this Bill, on the ground that they have a definite prospect of becoming established after serving a probationary period.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As my right hon. Friend indicated, this raises the question which is contained in the subsequent Amendment on the Paper, and I think we on this side are quite content to have the matter cleared up on the Amendment now before the House. I am afraid that the explanation which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman is not in the circumstances adequate, because this Clause excepts people who are in the established service of the Crown, and the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to extend that to people who are serving a probationary period with a view to establishment. I gather also from my right hon. Friend that the class which Treasury and Civil Service Commissioners and others had particularly in view is the class which at some time or other would be eligible for establishment. It is on that point that I wish to have an explanation of what is a very important matter affecting thousands in the Civil Service. I am not prepared at the moment to press any argument with reference to the people serving a probationary period, beyond pointing out that the certificate is usually only granted at the end of the five years' period.
I take it that this reference is to some preliminary certificate which will be issued for the purposes of this Act at the commencement of that period, as, of course, it must be issued at the commencement if it is to be worth anything at all. I am concerned more, in some respects, with a class which is in a peculiar position. The men in the second class have been medically rejected according to the ordinary standards or tests of the Civil Service. There are very large numbers, in fact, in that position in the employment of the Post Office. These men have not satisfied what I may describe for the moment as the extreme test of medical fitness, but they are retained in the Post Office service and regarded as being in every way capable of performing Post Office duties. They are, as a rule, retained in service until sixty years of age, and enjoy, under Post Office regulations, the rights of promotion, certain rights of
seniority, and so on, which apply to every man on the established list. As the matter stands, and taking the explanation of my right hon. Friend into account, I confess I have some doubt as to whether a class in that position would be excepted for the purposes of the Bill that we are now discussing.
There is a third class which is also important. It is a class which, for all practical purposes, is established, but is not in the strict technical sense an established class of Civil servants. I refer to a comparatively large number of men who are engaged in the factories and workshops of the telegraph and telephone repairing departments of the Post Office who are retained there under permanent conditions for all practical purposes, and never lose their employment, who have rights of sickness allowance and all the rest of it, but are not strictly and technically an established class.

Dr. MACNAMARA: They are hired men.

Mr. GRAHAM: They are hired men, but permanently employed, and have all the rights that I have just described. These are the three classes. There is first the class serving a probationary period with a certificate at the end of the period. Secondly, there is the class of medical rejects, a term I do not employ in a strict sense because they are not really medically rejected, but retained in the permanent service, though not admitted to the highest tests or highest standards of medical fitness for civil service purposes. There is, thirdly, the class of post office servants who are never unemployed, who have permanent situations, but who do not strictly belong to the technically established class of civil servants. It may be argued by the right hon. Gentleman in reply that these classes in whole or in part are covered. I do not take that view, and that view is not taken by their responsible officials. He may also suggest in reply that he cannot extend his concession to men in that position. But I would direct his attention to the Clause in the Schedule which specifically excepts the employés of local authorities, and bodies of a similar kind. The main contention behind this Amendment is this: It is perfectly plain to hon. Members that these men cannot be unemployed; as a matter of fact they can only lose their
employment by misconduct, or neglect, or by circumstances which for all practical purposes would rule them out of any consideration of any kind. I suggest that this being so, they are substantially in a position of men employed by the local authorities who are not dismissible except under the conditions I have specified, and, therefore, fully entitled to be excepted for the purposes of this Bill.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I would simply say that I have explained, I think, sufficiently, how far I am prepared to go. My hon. Friend has put his case with much courtesy, but I think he will recognise that I cannot go beyond the Amendment which I have moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Order in Council", and to insert instead thereof the word "Regulations".
This is an Amendment which seeks to retain the right of the House to review any change made with regard to the administration of the Act. We feel it is very desirable that any change made in the Regulations should be made in such a way that we have in this House the right to review it and to express our opinion upon it. I do not think this is a very objectionable Amendment from the view of the Government, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept it.

Mr. J. BELL: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend says that we have complete control over Regulations. I am very interested to hear that. I think when he has been in this House longer, he will somewhat modify that opinion as to our control over Regulations as against an Order-in-Council. But that by the way. The essential part here is that we are proceeding along the lines of the Unemploy-

ment Insurance Act, 1911, Section 107 (3), from which this Clause 39 (1) is copied. It provides that the adaptations in this Clause are made by Order-in-Council. That is the proper and constitutional course to pursue. These people are not officials under my authority as Minister of Labour. If they were I could make Regulations. We are not adopting any revolutionary plan, because this is a matter which comes more directly under the Treasury. Hence our procedure, a procedure which has been uniformly followed in the past.

Mr. CLYNES: I think the matter has been quite inadequately answered. The Minister has tried to make out that there is really little difference as between Regulations and an Order-in-Council. Why therefore not insert "Regulations" as proposed in this Amendment? As between the two, experience shows that it is more within the competence of this House to discuss Regulations than an Order-in-Council. The substantial reason for accepting the Amendment was given in the closing words that escaped the right hon. Gentleman, that is to say, if we retain in this Clause Order-in-Council the matter would be determined by the Treasury. Well, now, the general administration of this Act should be brought more and more within the region of this House, and within the general circle of the activities of the Minister of Labour. The Treasury have definite sums of money to find according to the provisions of the Bill. Beyond that I do not think the Treasury should be permitted to interfere seriously with matters of administration. As the right hon. Gentleman has put forward no strong reasons for retaining the words "Order in Council" I think he should consider the point and insert the word "regulations."

Question put, "That the words 'Order in Council' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 45.

Division No. 199.]
AYES.
[3.14 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Brown, Captain D. C.
Curzon, Commander Viscount


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bruton, Sir James
Dawes, Commander


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Butcher, Sir John George
Cockrell, Sir Maurice


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Campbell, J. D. G.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Barnston, Major Harry
Carr, W. Theodore
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Casey, T. W.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Coats, Sir Stuart
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Fell, Sir Arthur


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fildes, Henry


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Stevens, Marshall


Forrest, Walter
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Stewart, Gershom


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Magnus, Sir Philip
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Manville, Edward
Sutherland, Sir William


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Gretton, Colonel John
Mitchell, William Lane
Taylor, J.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F (Dulwich)
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Vickers, Douglas


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wallace, J.


Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hinds, John
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Howard, Major S. G.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Wason, John Cathcart


Hudson, R. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Whitla, Sir William


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Perring, William George
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Royden, Sir Thomas
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Lister, Sir J. Ashton
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Younger, Sir George


Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, W.)



Lorden, John William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lort-Williams, J.
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Parker.


NOES.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lawson, John J.
Swan, J. E.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Bromfield, William
Mallalieu, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Mills, John Edmund
Tillett, Benjamin


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Galbraith, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
Wignall, James


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Grundy, T. W.
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Guest, J (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Royce, William Stapleton



Hogge, James Myles
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Johnstone, Joseph
Simm, M. T.
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. T. Griffiths.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2) leave out the words, "immediately before his training was," and insert instead thereof the words, "was normally before his training."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

CLAUSE 40.—(Special provision with respect to discharged seamen, marines, soldiers, and airmen.)

(1) For the purpose of qualifying seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen to receive unemployment benefit on their return to civil life, the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council, respectively, shall, subject as hereinafter provided, out of moneys provided by Parliament for Navy, Army and Air Force services, respectively, pay to the unemployment fund such sums as may in the opinion of the Treasury be sufficient to enable all seamen, marines, soldiers, and airmen discharged from the service after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty, to be credited on discharge with the fixed number of contributions, and every seaman, marine, soldier, and airman who is so discharged shall, for the purposes of
this Act be treated as though he were on the date of his discharge an insured contributor in respect of whom the fixed number of contributions have been paid, and who ceases to be employed on that date:

Provided that—

(a) the sums payable under this Section shall not exceed in the aggregate such an amount as would be produced by weekly contributions paid in respect of each person so discharged as aforesaid at the weekly rate of sixpence throughout the period of his service; and

(b) no such payment shall be made in respect of any person who is, after the commencement of this Act, entitled to receive any sum out of public funds under any scheme for making payments to discharged seamen, marines, soldiers, or airmen in respect of unemployment.

(2) The fixed number of contributions for the purposes of this Section shall be ninety unless the Treasury are at any time of opinion that, having regard to the sums payable to the unemployment fund under this Section, it is necessary to fix some lower number.

(3) The sums to be paid under this Section to the unemployment fund shall be calculated in such manner as the Treasury may direct, and shall be paid to the unemployment fund in such manner and at such dates as may be agreed upon between the Minister and the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council, respectively.

(4) Nothing in this Section shall apply to any seaman, marine, soldier, or airman who is discharged through circumstances due to his own fault or at his own request.

(5) In this Section—

The expression "seaman" means a seaman within the meaning of the Naval and Marine (Pay and Pensions) Act, 1865;

The expression "marine" means a marine within the meaning of the Naval and Marine (Pay and Pensions) Act, 1865;

The expression "soldier" means a soldier of the regular forces, but does not include any soldier of His Majesty's Indian Forces or Royal Malta Artillery, or a native soldier of any regiment raised outside the United Kingdom;

The expression "airman" means a man of the regular Air Force;

Reference to "discharge" includes references to "transfer to the reserve," including a seaman, marine, soldier, or airman who, on the completion of any term of service, is transferred to any reserve.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "such sums as may in the opinion of the Treasury be sufficient to enable", and insert instead thereof "by way of employers' and employed persons' contributions in respect of".

After the word "twenty" insert the words "such sum as may in the opinion of the Treasury be sufficient to enable those seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (a).
This was a provision to secure that the weekly contribution of the discharged men of the Navy, Army and Air Force Services should not exceed sixpence, but now that the State contribution is a fixed figure this Sub-section is no longer necessary.

Sir F. BANBURY: Will this throw an increased charge upon the Exchequer?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Surely my right hon. Friend knows that it would not be
competent for me to do that without re-committing the Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is why I asked.

Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend may be quite sure that I should have taken care to ask for the re-committal. Had I thought that there would be any increased charge.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "through circumstances due to his own fault or".
This is a matter of substance which was raised in Committee upstairs. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) asked whether a man disqualified from benefit because he was discharged through circumstances due to his own fault, would have a right of appeal, and I promised to give the matter consideration. This Amendment is an endeavour to deal with that point, and partly to cover cases previously omitted. If hon. Members will look at the next Amendment, they will see that I propose to insert the words "or at the request of his parent or guardian". In all probability he is a mere boy under age, who has served for a very short time. On the whole, we thought that it would not be fair that he should be able to claim free insurance by reason of his very short period of service. The same is true of apprentices. There is also the case of the re-enlisted pensioner. He is a person who has served less than three months, and clearly his is not a case in which it would be proper to grant free insurance. The essential point raised by my right hon. Friend relates to the deserter, or the man who is discharged or dismissed in consequence of having been convicted on any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, Army Act, or Air Force Act. Such a man has two opportunities of establishing his case: First, at his hearing; and then, if dismissed, by appeal to the War Office or the Admiralty.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the words
or at the request of his parent or guardian, or who is a deserter, or who is discharged or dismissed in consequence of having been convicted on any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, the Army
Act, or the Air Force Act, or by any civil Court, or to recruits or re-enlisted pensioners not finally approved.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman would accept an amendment to leave out the words
or who is discharged or dismissed in consequence of having been convicted on any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act, or the Air Force Act.
I quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the man who deserts; but at the same time I do not think that many officers sitting on Courts-Martial or Disciplinary Courts, in deciding whether a man is to be dismissed the Service or not, will realise that it may mean the loss of his total Unemployment Benefits, and the matter, I think, requires a little more examination. We know that men, quite properly, are dismissed from the Services for offences which would not bring upon them similar punishment if they were in civil life. Possibly they are excellent workmen and good citizens, but, through temperament, are really unsuited for a disciplined force. It seems to me rather hard that these men, in addition to being dismissed or discharged and losing all pension rights, prize money, and benefits of that sort, should also lose the right of insurance if they take up regular employment in civil life. He has left, the Service as unsuited for it, and then you say he shall lose all Unemployment Benefits if he goes into some trade outside which is insurable.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It seems to me that you do. There is something to be said for a man who commits a serious offence, losing his benefits, but it does not seem right that for an offence which in civil life would not be so serious we should visit a man's sins upon his family. I would much rather that the right hon. Gentleman had confined the Amendment to the deserter and the man who leaves the Service at the request of his parents. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment which I suggest, but I certainly think the matter needs a little more examination.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend quite under-
stands, and I am not surprised, because this is a very technical matter. During a man's service, it does not matter whether he is a soldier or a sailor, the Government is paying something in on his behalf, and, when he leaves the Service, even although he has paid no contributions at all, he has 90 contributions to his credit and is able during the first year to get 15 weeks' unemployment benefit. If he deserts, he will not have any such contributions to his credit. He may, however, go into insurable employment and start afresh. My hon. and gallant Friend does not object to that; he objects to the man who is dismissed the Service in consequence of having been convicted of some offence being deprived of his unemployment benefit. He thinks that it is hard. I really do not think that it is. What happens is that he loses his opportunity of fifteen weeks' unemployment benefit in respect of his service with the forces. I think it is not unfair to say that a man discharged from His Majesty's service in consequence of the proceedings under these Acts ought to suffer that loss. A man who is not dismissed and not discharged, but is punished under the Naval Discipline Act, and has stayed in the Service until the end of his time, is not penalised and will have the opportunity of getting the fifteen weeks' unemployed benefit in the first year after he leaves the Service.

Mr. CLYNES: I was not convinced by the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that there was a great deal of justice in his Amendment, but, after listening to the statement of the Minister of Labour, I am tempted to ask if it is to be imagined that anyone in the service will ever be in the slightest degree influenced in regard to what he considers is his duty in the service by any prospective benefits in relation to this Act. Would a provision of this kind deter him from doing anything wrong or committing any mistake. If a man is guilty of misconduct the penalty should fall upon him in some way and not upon his wife and family, as in 99 cases out of a 100 it does. The unemployment benefit is not so much a payment to a workman out of work for the time being in the shape of money for him to spend as it is income for the household, and therefore we ought not to penalise the wife and children for misconduct on the part of the
man. Is it anticipated or imagined that a man would be influenced in his conduct in the service by the terms of this Act? I do not think any prospects of monetary gain in relation to the terms of employment would in the slightest way influence a man in respect of what he may do in the service. If he does wrong let him, as a service man, be personally punished in some other way, but do not penalise his family by withholding from them the money to which otherwise they would be entitled.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that this does mean an additional penalty on the man who commits an offence, for which he may be discharged from the service by sentence of court-martial. The officers of the court award the sentence which they think fits the offence and on the top of that, under this Act, it is proposed to impose an additional penalty on the man.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Not unless he be dismissed or discharged.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Assuming that the sentence of the court is that he be dismissed, that sentence presumably in the opinion of the court fits the crime, but in this case the right hon. Gentleman says there must be an additional penalty which falls not only on the man but on his wife and children. I suggest it is fair neither to the man nor to his family to impose this additional penalty, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in view of what has been said on this point, will either now alter this Amendment or undertake that the necessary alteration shall be made when the Bill reaches another place.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: I entirely disagree with the arguments of the last two speakers. I recollect the time when the system of deferred pay was in vogue in the Army, and I know that the possibility of losing that deferred pay had an extraordinary effect on the conduct of men. If members of a Court-Martial do not know what extra penalties are involved by sentences which they pass then they deserve to be severely dealt with.

Mr. R. SMITH: I do not think the point raised by the last speaker has any application to this matter, because obviously if the offence of which a man has been guilty is of such a nature as to
render him, in the opinion of those who try him, unfit to remain in the Service, they cannot take into consideration, to any great extent, the penalties that would follow on a man being dismissed. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour to consider this point. We are dealing with the Service man who commits an offence differently to the way in which we deal with a civilian. The penalty in the Act with regard to the man in civil life who loses employment by his own fault is in effect to deprive him of his unemployment benefit for a very limited period. I do not think it is fair to treat the man in the Service differently in that respect, seeing that the offence may be exactly the same. It may be an offence arising out of drunkenness which has caused the man to be discharged from the Service. In civil employment a man so discharged is penalised to the extent that he cannot claim benefit for six weeks, whereas in the case of a man in the Service he is deprived in the first twelve months of his opportunity of 15 weeks' benefit. I think there is a case for reconsideration in this matter, and if the Government cannot concede what is now asked, they certainly should agree not to place the Service man in a worse position than the man in civil life.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words
or who is discharged or dismissed in consequence of having been convicted on any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act, or the Air Force Act, or by any civil Court.
That would cut out the cases of those men whom we have been considering. I need not repeat the arguments which I have just put forward.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I quite sympathise with the general spirit of my hon. Friends who have put this point to me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) asked me in Committee what sort of appeal a man would have, and I pointed out that, if a man is dismissed or discharged in consequence of such proceedings, he would have an
appeal, although I do not say that that goes the whole way to meet the point. I am asked now that this penalty, if it be so called, shall not be imposed. I hope that that request will not be pressed. The matter has been the subject of very careful calculation by the Admiralty and the War Office, and I have been in close consultation with them in regard to it. I would, however, go thus far, for what it is worth. I cannot make any modification on my own responsibility, apart from the services concerned; I must work in connection with them. I will, however, consult them, and see if, between us, we can agree that this can be fairly modified—I do not say it can, but I will ask them—so that the penalty may not fall upon women and children. Of course, in the very large proportion of these cases, the men concerned would be single and not married men. If it appears to those who are responsible for this, acting in consultation with myself as Minister of Labour, that some modification is possible, I will do my best to get whatever may be agreed upon inserted in another place. I must, however, resist this Amendment now, and I hope it will not be pressed.

Major BARNES: I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman could meet us as far as this. There has been a good deal of expression of opinion, at all events from this side of the House, with regard to this matter, and we realise that it is probably one which the right hon. Gentleman does not feel able to deal with himself at the present moment. If the matter is left as he proposes to leave it, however, we may never have another chance of taking a decision on the point. The Bill is leaving this House now and going to another place. When it comes back again, if nothing has been done on this point, we could not raise it again. Could not the right hon. Gentleman meet us by taking out these words now, on the understanding that, if, after consultation, he cannot modify them, he will put them back in another place. That would give us an opportunity, when the Bill came back to this House, to take a decision on the point.

Dr. MACNAMARA: That suggestion was made to me last Friday in connection with Clause 8, which deals with
disqualification for unemployment benefit. I would rather leave it the other way. I have no authority, naturally, to modify the terms. I have said that I will do what I can, after consultation, to see if they can be modified, and that, if that is found possible, I will do my best to get the modification carried out in another place.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: We are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but I think this is a case in which he should be supreme. It is not a matter for either the Army Council, the Admiralty, or the Air Force to settle. As far as they are concerned, their desire is to carry it out by the court-martial that takes place, and I can see no reason why they should be called upon to decide whether or not an additional penalty to that imposed by their subordinates should be imposed upon a man's family. It is a question of the civil versus the military power, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to bear that in mind.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert a new Sub-section:
(5) Every seaman, marine, soldier, and airman who, subsequent to the date of his discharge, joins an excepted employment, shall cease to be an insured contributor under this Act, and the sums paid to the unemployment fund in respect of any such person shall be repaid to the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council, as the case may be.
This Amendment is designed to safeguard the Exchequer. The Clause enacts that out of moneys provided by Parliament, the Navy, Army and Air Force respectively shall pay to the Unemployment Fund such sums as may, in the opinion of the Treasury, be sufficient to enable all seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen discharged after a certain date to be credited on discharge with the fixed number of contributions. The right hon.
Gentleman will remember that I asked in Committee what would happen in the case of those seamen, soldiers and airmen who, subsequent to their discharge, joined one of the excepted employments referred to in Part II. of the First Schedule of this Bill; and I suggested to him that, before the Report Stage, he might consider some means whereby sums credited to the Unemployment Funds in respect of men who subsequently joined an excepted employment should be repaid to the Army Council, Admiralty, Air Force, as the case might be. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment. If it is accepted, I assume that the moneys refunded will be put under Unexpended Balances, and will not be spent in some other way. So far as the national Exchequer is concerned, I certainly think that these sums, if the men subsequently join an excepted employment, ought to be repaid to the authorities mentioned in the Amendment.

Major BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is clearly an Amendment in which the past of the right hon. Gentleman tends to go against his present. As Minister of Labour he will want to keep the unemployed fund as big as it can be. He is asked under the Amendment to secure that sums shall be paid back out of it to the Admiralty, Army Council or the Air Council, as the case may be. I have no doubt if he were still Secretary to the Admiralty he would think this was rather a good Amendment. Perhaps it will help him to make better terms with regard to the one we have just left. If he accepts this he can go to the Admiralty and point out that what they will lose on the swings they will gain on the roundabouts. If they will not insist on the former Amendment and let the man with whom I am quite sure his vast experience will give him a great deal of sympathy, have the benefit of it, the Admiralty by this Amendment may recover some amount. I do not know if this will succeed in convincing the right hon. Gentleman that there are good grounds for accepting this Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not take seriously the suggestion that I should go to the Admiralty with a proposal of that sort. What my hon. and gallant Friend
(Lieut.-Colonel Murray) put to me up stairs was this. What would happen to a soldier, a sailor or an airman when he came out of the Service, and went into an excepted occupation? Will he then have to go on paying?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: That was not the principal point—not whether he had to go on paying, but what would happen to the sums which had already been contributed to the unemployment fund on his behalf?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I thought my hon. and gallant Friend asked me generally what would be the position of the man when he left the Service, and went into an excepted occupation? He will not pay, of course. What will happen to him will be that for 12 months he will be entitled to 15 weeks' unemployment benefit. Thereafter it will depend whether he goes into an insurable occupation or not, whether he pays or not. I agree that is not the main thing. The main thing is, what is going to happen to the contribution. The Amendment proposes that if an ex-service man takes a post in agriculture, for instance, no contribution shall be credited to him. That has to be borne in mind The money paid on his behalf by the Army Council or Admiralty, as the case may be, shall be refunded to the Army Council or the Admiralty. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Barnes) quite realised that. He says I must be anxious that the fund shall be as large as possible.

Major BARNES: I suggested that your former position as Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty would pull against your present position.

4.0 P.M.

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend entirely left out my future. That argument will not do. But it is not in the interest of the man to have this money so paid back. Although, in an excepted occupation, he may fall into unemployment at some other time, and have no benefit coming to him. Surely it is probably in his interest that the money shall stand where it is, and not be paid back to the Army Council or Admiralty, otherwise, with the best intentions in the world, my hon. and gallant Friends may inflict a hardship upon the very man for whom they are most solicitous. I do not know whether they have considered that
aspect of the matter. That alone will make it impossible for me to accept the Amendment.

Lieut-Colonel MURRAY: Let us assume that a man be in an excepted occupation for 10 years, and then joins an insured occupation. Would he stand in the same position as if he had joined it 10 years before?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Not 10 years, because elsewhere there is a provision that if he be away from insurance for five years, everything is wound up.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made:

After Clause 41, insert the words:

"TEMPORARY AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS."

After Clause 42, leave out the words:

"TEMPORARY AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS." [Dr. Macnamara.]

CLAUSE 47.—(Short title and repeal.)

(1) This Act may be cited as the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920.

(2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "shall" ["this Act shall come into operation"], insert the words "save as therein otherwise expressly provided."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "first day of October," and to insert instead thereof the words "eighth day of November."
The object of this is to carry forward the date of the application of the Act from 1st October to 8th November. Even that interval will be all too short to enable the necessary arrangements to be made to bring the Bill into force. There is a vast amount of machinery to be got ready before this scheme can be floated. There is the printing of millions of forms and stamps, an enormous provision of paper will have to be made, and there will have to be a very great deal of registration, as will readily be understood when it is remembered that the persons we are covering in insurance are increased from 4,000,000 under the existing Act, to 12,000,000. It is for these reasons physically impossible even to commence the thing with anything like a decent chance
of a fair wind behind it, without altering the date.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.

PART II.

EXCEPTED EMPLOYMENTS.

(a) Employment in agriculture, including horticulture and forestry.
(b) Employment in domestic service, except where the employed person is employed in any trade for the purposes of gain.
(c) Employment in the naval, military, or air service of the Crown, including service in officers' training corps, except as otherwise provided in this Act.
(d) Employment under any local or other public authority, or in a police force, or in the service of any railway company, or a joint committee of two or more such companies, or of any other public company engaged in a statutory undertaking, where the Minister certifies that the employed person is not subject to dismissal except for misconduct or for neglect in the performance of or unfitness to perform his duties, and that the terms and conditions on which the employed person is engaged make it unnecessary that he should be insured under this Act.
(e) Employment as a teacher to whom the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, or the scheme under the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1919, or the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879, applies, or, in the event of any similar enactment being hereafter passed as respects teachers or any class of teachers (other than teachers in public elementary schools), as a teacher to whom such enactment applies.
(f) Employment as a teacher in a public elementary (or similar) school at any time after the person employed has undergone an examination in order to qualify for the position of a certificated teacher in such a school, and employment as a pupil or student teacher, junior student or monitor in such school.
(g) Employment as an agent paid by commission or fees or a share in the profits, or partly in one and partly in another such ways, where the person so employed is mainly dependent for his livelihood on his earnings from some other occupation, or where he is ordinarily employed as such agent by more than one employer, and his employment under no one of such employers is that on which he is mainly dependent for his livelihood.
(h) Employment otherwise than by way of manual labour and at a rate of remuneration exceeding in value two hundred and fifty pounds a year, or in cases where such employment involves part-time service only, at a rate of remuneration which, in the opinion of the Minister is equivalent to a rate of remuneration exceeding two hundred
1897
and fifty pounds a year for whole-time service.
(i) Employment of a casual nature otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business, and otherwise than for the purposes of any game or recreation where the persons employed are engaged or paid through a club, and in such case the club shall be deemed to be the employer.
(j) Employment of any class which may be specified in a special order made by the Minister, or in a special order made under the National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1919, and declared by the Minister to apply for the purposes of this Act, as being of such a nature that it is ordinarily adopted as subsidiary employment only and not as the principal means of livelihood.
(k) Employment as a member of the crew of a fishing vessel where the employed person is wholly remunerated by a share in the profits or the gross earnings of the working of the vessel.
(l) Employment in the service of the husband or wife of the employed person.
(m) Employment in respect of which no wages or other money payment is made, where the person employed is the child of, or is maintained by, the employer.

Mr. W. SMITH: I beg to move, in Part II, to leave out paragraph (a).
This relates to a point I raised on the Second Reading when I asked for some reason why agriculture was excluded from the Bill. I regret that I was not able to raise the point in Committee. After all this is a Measure which is calculated to meet the necessities of work-people when they are unemployed and I cannot conceive how the necessity of people who are out of work connected with the industry of agriculture can be any different from those in other trades, sufficiently at any rate to warrant them being excluded from the provisions of the Bill. I do not know whether the Minister is of the impression that agriculture is an industry to which unemployment does not have the same application as to others. If so, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that in the last year or so there has been a considerable change in that respect. At the present moment in some areas there are very large numbers of agricultural workers out of employment. The position of these men, some of whom are married, with families dependent upon them, is very serious, having regard to the present cost of living, and if the tendency in future is to be that discharges are to take place from firms I seriously suggest that the agricultural workers have
some claim for consideration from the Government in this respect. I have not been able to ascertain the real reason why they have been excluded unless it is that the Government consider that there is not sufficient unemployment in that industry to warrant including them. That is a circumstance which has changed very rapidly during the last year or so and many of the men are very anxious that the provisions of this Bill should be applied to them I am connected with one of the organisations which deals with this class of labour, and we have endeavoured to get the opinions of our members on the point, with the result that we have had communications from our branches, in which the men profess a desire to come under this Bill. At a conference, while there was not complete unanimity, a resolution was carried asking that the industry should be included. That being so, it may present a different aspect of the situation from what was present to the right hon. Gentleman's mind when he gave this matter previous consideration. Can he give any indication whether the industry is likely to be brought within the scope of the Bill at the present time or is anything contemplated later on?

Mr. ROYCE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would draw attention to the fact that there is a seasonal period of unemployment, especially as regards women employed in agriculture, and I think the industry is of sufficient importance to receive the serious consideration of the Minister in this connection. The pay of the ordinary agricultural labourer is very small compared with the pay in other industries, and, consequently, during a period of unemployment the suffering is very great, and anything that the State can do to mitigate that suffering will be of great benefit to the people of this country.

Mr. SPEAKER: The effect of this Amendment may be to increase the charge upon the State. If half a million persons employed in agriculture be added, it means that the State has to pay one-third of the contributions of the added employers and the employed. Is not that so?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will deal with that point. The State contribution is fixed, and the only way that this can be dealt with would be by increasing the
contributions from the employed person and the employer, if it were necessary to increase the sums because the numbers had to be bigger. There would be no other way. On the merits of the case, we have excluded from the main scope of the Bill two large classes of the industrial population—the agricultural worker and the domestic servant.

Sir F. BANBURY: The Memorandum says that the State will contribute one-third of the combined contributions of employers and workmen. If you include agricultural labourers, you will raise the subscription on the people employed and on the employers. Therefore, it will make the contributions of employers and insured people larger, and the contribution of the State will be increased.

Dr. MACNAMARA: This Memorandum was the Memorandum affixed to the original copy of the Bill. The Bill has been seriously modified upstairs, and the rate of contribution has been altered. There have been a series of changes adjusting the position to the altered rate of contribution, and there is no additional charge under the financial resolution. If there were it would have to be met by still further increasing the contribution from employers and employed.

Major BARNES: Is not all that the financial resolution does simply to fix the proportion which the State must contribute? Surely we cannot bind the number of people coming in under this Bill. That must fluctuate according to the industry, and the fact that we bring in a new industry does not touch the financial resolution. Also an industry might increase in numbers.

Dr. MURRAY: Does not the Bill give power to the Ministry by Order in Council to bring in the excluded industries?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Clause 4.

Dr. MURRAY: Then the Bill already takes power to include these classes of workmen within its operation?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I intended to say that I could not possibly accept this Resolution to-day, but under Clause 4 power is given to the Ministry of Labour to effect the inclusion of excluded industries by Order made with the approval of the Treasury, and laid before Parliament for 20 days, if it seem expedient to do that later.

Major Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: In the discussion on the Financial Resolution the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) moved to have a definite limitation to the amount. If the limitations suggested by the hon. Member were accepted, it might make it impossible to include this large class in the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade, then Minister of Labour, stated that the financial Resolution must be wide enough to cover the possible inclusion of these other trades.

Mr. SPEAKER: This would appear to involve an increase in the charge which would fall upon the Exchequer, and if so we cannot deal with it on the Report stage. I do not say that it could not be dealt with in Committee. It might well be within the terms of the Financial Resolution. if it were within the terms of the Financial Resolution, the Committee could deal with it as they pleased, but on Report we cannot increase the charge.

Amendment made: In Part II, paragraph (b), after the word "trade" insert the words "or business carried on."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Part II, paragraph (d), to leave out the words "of any other public company engaged in a statutory undertaking," and to insert instead thereof
(iv) in the service of any public utility company, that is to say, any company carrying on any undertaking for the supply of gas, water, hydraulic power or electricity, any dock undertaking, or any tramway undertaking, including a light railway constructed wholly or mainly on a public road; or
(v) in which the persons employed are entitled to rights in a superannuation fund established by or in pursuance of an Act of Parliament for the benefit of persons in that employment.
This, I think, is as practicable a course as we can pursue in regard to the rather difficult question of how far people may be excluded who have statutory rights to a pension fund or who are "established." A great deal of thought was given to this in Committee upstairs, and this is the result of our final consideration.

Major BARNES: This Amendment makes an addition to excepted employments. Is the effect of the words following (iv) to take all gas workers out of the Bill?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Not all gas workers. The words which will follow the Amendment—"where the Minister certifies that the employed person is not subject to dismissal," etc.—govern the whole thing.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. WARREN: I beg to move, in Part II, at the end of paragraph (d), to insert the words, "or where the employed person is employed under a local or other public authority otherwise than by way of manual labour."
I am hopeful that the Minister of Labour will accept this Amendment. I have behind me the authority of the Urban District Councils' Association and that of the National Association of Local Government Officials. They are very anxious that exceptions shall be made in respect of those employés, other than maunal workers, who at the moment do not happen to possess a superannuation fund. They are under the impression, and I hope rightly so, that at an early date the Minister of Health may introduce a Bill dealing with the superannuation of persons employed under local authorities in accordance with the recommendations of a Departmental Committee. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment which will in no way increase the charge and will meet the case of a very deserving and excellent body of people.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
It might be thought that the Clause as amended in the Committee would cover the point, but it does not really do so. In paragraph (d) it is stated
Where the Minister certifies that the employed person is not subject to dismissal except for misconduct or for neglect in the performance of or unfitness to perform his duties, and that the terms and conditions on which the employed person is engaged make it unnecessary that he should be insured under this Act.
The case of the employés of municipal bodies is that, technically, they are subject to dismissal, but that really they are not and they enjoy permanent occupation. They very naturally under those circumstances object to paying contributions for benefits which they will never enjoy. Parliament in the Public Health Act of 1875 thought it wise to provide that every officer and servant appointed under that Act "shall be removable by the
urban authority at their pleasure." That stands, although the cases in which they are removed are rare. If the Amendment is not accepted they will be compelled to pay for benefits which they will not receive. If the Minister would simply certify that the terms and conditions on which the employed person was engaged made it unnecessary that he should be insured we should be quite content, because we are quite certain we could satisfy the Minister that it is not necessary.

Dr. MACNAMARA: All the representations of the National Joint Council, the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the National Association of Local Government Workers, were prior to the Amendments which were made in Committee. The effect of the Amendment in Committee to paragraph (d) was to substitute, for the requirement that in order to be excepted from the provisions of the Bill, an employé of a local or other public authority must be entitled to rights in a statutory superannuation fund, the requirement that the employé should not be subject to dismissal except for misconduct, neglect of duties, or unfitness to perform them. The paragraph will in practice exempt from insurance the great majority of the non-manual employés, and therefore there is no need to press this Amendment. As a matter of fact, the Amendment would at once exempt from insurance persons employed by local or other public authorities, otherwise than in manual labour, for instance, on temporary work, and should we do not make provision for them?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Those cases are very rare.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think so, and it would not do for me to except persons who are not in established positions, and who can be dismissed, and although they have not been dismissed, and may not be dismissed, still might be dismissed. Therefore, I have to safeguard such persons.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: There has been a lot of work pressed upon local authorities by this House in recent years, such, for instance, as that connected with food contral, which has necessitated the employment of large temporary staffs who will ultimately be dispensed with, and unless they are protected while in employment, their position afterwards will be very diffi-
cult. Again, local authorities in establishing the machinery to work the new duties that are frequently imposed upon them have to engage temporary clerks, and I am sure it is not desired that men taken on temporarily should not be safeguarded and should be prevented altogether from being able to enjoy the privileges of the Act.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I think we shall all agree that the Amendment as framed goes much further than possibly the mover and seconder intended. At the same time, I should like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied under the Clause as it stands that what are called the permanent staff of municipal authorities are excluded, because it is the opinion of the local authorities themselves that their permanent staff are not excluded. I understand it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention that they should be excluded, and if he can take further counsel with the local authorities T am sure it will be appreciated.

Mr. G. THORNE: I should like to support that appeal. I gathered a moment or two ago that the right hon. Gentleman had received communications from the Corporations' Association. I do not know whether that appeal is satisfied by what he has said, but if he will take steps to see it is satisfied, I think it will meet with the desire of the House.

Amendment negatived.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Part II., paragraph (e), to leave out the words, "to whom the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, or," and to insert instead thereof the words
of any person who is in recognised service within the meaning of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, or in a capacity which, if that person were under the age of sixty-five years, would be such recognised service, or employment as a teacher to whom.
This is an Amendment excepting those teachers in England over 65 years of ago whose superannuation rights under the Act of 1918 are temporarily suspended during the period of temporary employment, and in my next Amendment the words, ("other than teachers in public elementary schools") are to be omitted as having no application under present circumstances.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Part II., paragraph (e), leave out the words, ("other than teachers in public elementary schools").—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Part II., paragraph (f), to leave out the words "public elementary (or similar) school," and to insert instead thereof the words "in a State-aided school in Scotland."

This and the next Amendment are necessary to secure the necessary adaptation of the provision to Scotland and Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Part II., paragraph (f), leave out the words "in such a school, and employment as a pupil or student teacher, junior student or monitor in such school," and insert instead thereof the words
and before the announcement of the result of the examination, and employment as a junior student in such a school, and employment in a public elementary school in England as a pupil or student teacher or in a national school in Ireland as a monitor."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

SECOND SCHEDULE.

RATES AND PERIODS OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

1. Unemployment benefit shall be payable in respect of each week of any continuous period of unemployment and shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be at the weekly rate of one pound for men and sixteen shillings for women, or such other weekly rates as may be prescribed:

Provided that, in the case of an insured contributor under the age of eighteen unemployment benefit shall only be paid at half the full rate.

2. No person shall receive unemployment benefit for more than fifteen or such other number of weeks as may be prescribed, either generally or for any particular employment or branch thereof, within any insurance year, or in respect of any period of less than one day, or while he is in receipt of an old age pension.

In this paragraph the expression "insurance year" means such period of not less than fifty-two weeks as may be prescribed:

Provided that for the purpose of meeting any change in the insurance year or for the purpose of making provision for any period which may elapse between the date upon which contributions commence to be payable under this Act and the commencement of the next ensuing insurance year, the Minister may substitute for the insurance year such less period as may be necessary and make a corresponding reduction as regards the number of weeks of benefit which may be received within that less period.

3. No person shall receive more unemployment benefit than in the proportion of one week's benefit for every six contributions paid in respect of him under this Act, or such other proportion as may be prescribed with the consent of the Treasury:

Provided that—

(a) Where, owing to the fact that the wages or other remuneration of an employed person are paid at intervals greater than a week, or for any other like reason, contributions are paid under this Act in respect of any person at intervals greater than a week, that person shall for the purpose of this paragraph be entitled to treat each of those contributions as so many contributions as there are weeks in the period for which the contribution was paid; and

(b) In the case of an insured contributor of the age of eighteen years or upwards any contributions paid in respect of that contributor before he attained the age of eighteen years, shall, for the purpose of the foregoing provision, be treated in the case of contributions at the rate of twopence as two-thirds of a contribution and contributions at the rate of one penny halfpenny as three-fifths of a contribution.

4. Any time during which a person is, under this Act, disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit shall be excluded in the computation of periods of unemployment under this Schedule.

5. A period of unemployment shall not be deemed to commence till the employed person has made application for unemployment benefit in the prescribed manner.

6. The power conferred by this Schedule on the Minister of prescribing rates and periods of unemployment benefit shall not be exercised so as to increase the rate of benefit above twenty-two shillings per week or to reduce it below thirteen shillings per week for men or below ten shillings per week for women, or so as to increase the period of unemployment benefit above fifteen weeks, or so as to alter the proportion which the period of benefit bears to the number of contributions paid, except by rules confirmed by an Order made in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to special Orders.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), after the word "unemployment" ["continuous period of unemployment"], to insert the words "after the first three days of unemployment."
This is the Amendment which deals with the waiting period, and gives effect to the decision of the Government that we shall now set up a three days' waiting period. When the Bill was originally introduced there was a six days'
waiting period. Upstairs in Committee the right hon. Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) secured the deletion of that, and the introduction of no waiting period at all, except that I think I am right in my interpretation when I say a man would not, under his scheme, get benefit, though from the first day, unless he had been out a week. In the Bill as it originally stood a man got no unemployment benefit for the first week. This proposal is to make the waiting period three days. If we were to stick to no waiting period at all, the decision at which the Committee arrived, the effect on the finances would be, with benefits at 12s. for women and 15s. for men, that we should increase the annual amount of benefit—with no waiting period and payable from the first day and for each day—by £4,750,000. If we took it at no waiting period and payments from the first day, but only after a man had been out six days, which, I think, is the scheme the right hon. Gentleman advocated, the amount would be £3,500,000. If we have a waiting period of three days, the increase in cost to the country will be £2,750,000.
The great effect of a waiting period at all is this—to put it quite bluntly—that you have a security against paying the benefits in a large number of cases for very short periods of unemployment. If you have only a certain amount of money to go along with you had better conserve it as much as possible for the later weeks of unemployment when the hardship is beginning to get greater rather than spend it on a great many very small broken periods. That is the proposition I put forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting is one of the most eloquent advocates of the necessity for increased production. If You abolish the waiting period altogether, then you afford an inducement to a man towards the latter part of the week not to go to work. I do not say, nor do I suggest, that he would always take it, but in this case he will get more by keeping at work than otherwise. We are trying to meet the case fairly. For those who want unemployment benefit from the first day there is still this open: they can, under the Bill, themselves have a special scheme with no waiting period at all—if they are prepared to pay for it. They can come under Section 20 with a supplementary scheme which will cover the
places of this scheme of ours which are not covered. There may be those who would wish to pay for special benefits. There is no objection to them doing so, but I am afraid that there is a large part of the community to whom the cost of contributing to cover no waiting period does not appeal, for a scheme with no waiting period is very expensive. The cost to a large part of the community would be prohibitive in view of Health Insurance and the rest of it. Therefore, I commend to the House the compromise —which is an advance upon the original Bill—in which we make a waiting period of three days.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out the words "one pound," and to insert the words "fifteen shillings."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would that cut out my next Amendment, which is simply to equalise the amount?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's Amendment will come in after the word "pound."

Dr. MACNAMARA: I only want to bring the Bill back to its original form. Those who desire to have the 20s. unemployment benefit are in a position to obtain it by paying for it themselves.

Major BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the extra financial cost?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There will be no extra financial charge thrown upon the State.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: Are we to understand that the calculations are such that the contributions as fixed in the Bill now, will not permit of more than 15s. being paid, and that the extra twopence which has been added is necessary in order to provide the three extra days? I understood the Government were prepared to put in 18s., and not 15s., as the result of the extra contribution. It is difficult to argue this matter from a purely actuarial point of view, but the whole contention of the Government is contrary to the experience of trade unions, who have paid this unemployment benefit, and it seems strange that the Government should ask for an extra penny from the workman,
and another penny from the employers, and still be unable to give any further benefit. I think we are entitled to have some further explanation, because three days for an extra twopence seems entirely inadequate.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I think those hon. Members who sat on the Committee will feel exceedingly disappointed at the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has put down. We have been reminded that the Bill has been very carefully amended so as to make the contribution £1 per week, not because that was thought at all adequate, but because of the limitations of finance and the actuarial position, and we hoped that the readjustment of the amount to £1 might be a practical figure. I am sure, if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to agree to a compromise, and accept the 18s suggested, he would alleviate the disappointment which I am sure will be felt. You want a benefit which will be of some value and assistance in times of stress and unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the desire for increased production. Surely the whole basis of the unemployment insurance scheme is to ensure that men when at work shall not have constantly before them the fear of being thrown out of employment. The idea that by increasing production they will exhaust the amount of work available is a bugbear, and, if we are to get full production to the utmost capacity of machines and men, the workmen must have something to which to look forward if by chance work falls off, and they are thrown out of employment.
The purchasing power of 15s. is to-day infinitely less than the original sum put in the first Insurance Act of 1912. Therefore, instead of this being an advance, it is a retrograde step and places the workmen in a worse rather than a better position. The export returns for the last month show a decrease as compared with. May of some £3,000,000, and I submit that if we are to increase our output and to send our goods out into the world which is clamouring for them we must have increased production. The only way to secure increased production is to remove the fear of unemployment which is constantly before the workmen. I cannot for a moment believe that this miserable sum of 15s. per week is going to remove that fear. I therefore appeal to the right
hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and make the sum 18s., so that the workman may have something upon which to fall back if unemployment comes. We know that it is purely a question of finance, but it is a penny wise and a pound foolish to stint a measure of this sort. If you are going in for a programme of reconstruction, you ought to do so on broad bold lines, and you will never solve the question of industry and of unemployment by tinkering at it. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the finding of the Committee upstairs, whether he cannot see his way to amend the scheme so as to make it worthy of acceptance.

Mr. TILLETT: I wish to add my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. The value of one pound compared with pre-War days is about 8s., and we want to maintain our people when they are out of work. The Committee upstairs, which discussed this matter minutely, are much the better judges of the position. They asked that a pound should be granted, and it would not be so very handsome if the Government helped us out of the difficulty. Fifteen shillings to-day represent about 6s. before the War, and that would about buy two decent cigars at their present prices. I think it is one of those little pettifogging meannesses which degrade the Government itself. I have full sympathy with the point of view of the holding of the public purse strings, but I do not believe that the public are so mean as to look on the economy of the Government in this particular as a right and statesmanlike attitude. I want to make an appeal to the Government to give us this concession. It has put many scores of shillings on barrels of beer; it has been mulcting us in all sorts of additional taxation, but it should be remembered that in this case we have to maintain the vitality of the nation, and therefore I appeal to the Government to give the out-of-works £1 a week which, after all, really represents less than 8s. 6d. a week.

Sir J. BUTCHER: What contributions are necessary from workmen and employers in order to pay 15s. to the men and 10s. to the women as unemployment benefit, allowing for the three days waiting period?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Fourpence from the men and fourpence from their em-
ployers, 3d. from women and 3½d. from their employers.

Sir J. BUTCHER: And therefore to obtain an unemployment benefit of £1 a week the contribution would have to be 5d. from the men and 5d. from the employers, and something less from the women. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright there is no reason why the workmen should not combine to bring in a supplementary scheme which would raise the benefit to £1 a week or more, and in the present state of the organisation of labour, I should have thought it extremely probable that they would desire to insure for this larger unemployment benefit, and thus do away with the complaints raised by my hon. Friends near me as to the inadequacy of the payment.

Mr. SWAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill will give more consideration to his question. When the Bill was originally introduced, and it was suggested that 15s. should be given, there were fears expressed that malingering would thereby be encouraged. It is easy to dispose of any possibility of malingering even if the allowance be increased to £1 a week. No man would desire to rely on £1 a week in order to maintain his wife and family. When the 15s. was fixed upon, the cost of maintaining a pauper was admittedly 20s. 6d. a week. That was last October, and I believe, if later statistics were forthcoming, it would be found that that cost has substantially risen. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not want to give an unemployed man a grant which is less than that which is admitted to be necessary for the maintenance of a pauper? This is substantially less, but, while we have to spend 20s. 6d. to maintain a pauper, here we are expected to maintain, according to some standard of decency, not merely a pauper but an unemployed man and his family; and we are compelled, in spite of this Act, to appeal for assistance to the Poor Law again. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give this a little more consideration, and to try and put it on such a basis that there will be some security that the unemployed man and his family will be free from dependence on the Poor Law.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am rather tired of hearing about these appeals, and I hope hon. Members on this side of the House are going to make
a bit of a fight about this. I think the Government are extremely foolish in reducing the amount when it was the considered judgment of the Committee to give £1 a week. There is going to be a good deal of unemployment this winter. The slump has already begun in the North of England. There is a slump in the textile trade, and men are being thrown out of work. There is also a lot of unemployment in the engineering trade already, and there will be more. There is unemployment in my own constituency and in other North country ports, owing to the stoppage of the export of coal, and that looks like going on for some time. Those men who are out of employment will be trying to keep themselves alive on 15s. a week.

Mr. SWAN: It cannot be done.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Of course it cannot be done. On the other hand, we see more display of wealth among the wealthy classes even than before the War. We see the reckless spending of money, the flaunting of luxuries, luxurious motor cars and other conveyances, gorgeous entertainments and all the rest of it. There is the money that is being spent at the great fashionable race meetings, and the money that will shortly be spent at Cowes. That is what bites into the soul of the people. They see, on the one side, money being wasted on useless fripperies and luxuries, and on the other side they see men who, through no fault of their own, are out of employment and who see their family hungry. It is foolish, apart from anything else. It will be welcomed by the extremists in this country who do not look to parliamentary action to bring about a radical change in our old industrial system. I hope that those on this side who agree with my view are going to make a fight about this. It will not pay us in the long run to have our unemployed going on short commons. What is the cause of the under-production to-day in Germany and in Poland? Above all, it is the under-nourishment from which the people have been suffering for a long period. If we are going to have great masses of people undernourished for long periods—and that is what the reduction of the allowance means—there will be a falling off in production again when those men can be employed, and it will lower their vitality
as well. We are going to injure the productive power of the nation, and to injure our great source of wealth—the health and usefulness of the working people.

5.0 P.M.

Sir F. FLANNERY: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated upon what condition of trade generally the actuarial calculations to which he has referred are based. Trade varies very largely in cycles. I can remember several periods when the employer vainly seeks for workmen, and other periods when unemployment is rampant, because trade is very bad in every branch of manufacture and commerce. Those cycles of good and bad trade, good employment and unemployment, vary enormously. The variations are extreme, and almost within the most extreme limits. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether those actuarial calculations are based upon either of the extreme limits or upon what condition of Trade generally throughout the country they have been calculated?

Mr. MYERS: When we reach a time when it costs more to maintain a convict or a pauper than we offer to the unemployed workman, a state of things has arisen which calls for very serious attention and adjustment. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that the country is confronted with a period of unemployment. The slump has already set in in the textile trade of the North, and that unemployment should obtain at all at present, in view of the great needs of the country and of the world at large, is another evidence of the necessity of close attention being given to this matter under existing circumstances. But the point at issue is, can we or ought we to afford to maintain a decent standard of life for a workman who happens to be out of employment for the time being. Any hon. Member who owns horses, if he happens to have no work for an animal for a day, a week, or a month, looks upon it as an absolute necessity and sound economy to preserve the animal in the best possible condition in order that it may be able to work effectively when he requires it to do so. During the period of unemployment for military duty that our soldiers have, we take the responsibility of clothing, feeding and housing them well. The standard of efficiency is maintained all along the line from the
point of view of sound national economy. When the workman is unemployed it is in the best interests of the State and of the community to maintain the highest possible standard of efficiency, in order that when the period of the possibility of employment comes he may be ready to take up his employment under reasonable conditions. In these days, fifteen shillings a week will not keep a single man in a decent standard of efficiency, and when it is applied to a married man with domestic responsibilities the position becomes worse, and my appeal is to preserve, as far as possible, the standard of industrial efficiency. It is a misfortune for a person to be out of employment, and we ought to maintain him in a standard of strength, fitness and general well being, in order that when the opportunity comes he will be in the best possible condition to resume his employment, both in his own interest and in the wider interest of the community and the State.

Dr. MURRAY: I am not under-rating the 15s., which will be of some use, and I recognise that it is a great step in advance on what we have done before; but now that the Government have tackled the subject and are seeking to deal with the industrial problem which has been before the country at all times, they might have dealt with it more generously. Some people regard themselves as the high priests of economy in this House and hold up their hands in holy horror at the expense to the Exchequer; but they forget that, while they are straining at these gnats of economy, they are swallowing whole caravans of camels in Mesopotamia, Russia and elsewhere. Therefore, I hope the Government will realise that the biggest charge upon the Exchequer ought to be the social upliftment of the people.

Mr. SPEAKER: This will not affect the Exchequer one way or another. If you were to make the amount £5 a week, it would not affect the Exchequer. No more will come out of the Exchequer; it will have to come out of the fund, which may be bankrupt.

Dr. MURRAY: I will not deal with that point further. I have had experience of working among the poor at times of great distress in one of the largest cities, and those who have gone through long periods of unemployment have had experiences which they will never forget. Although
the 15s. will be of some use, yet in the times in which we live it will not go far.

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend (Sir F. Flannery) asked me on what actuarial basis the figures have been arrived at. They have been derived from statistics taken over a very long period, with varying cycles of trade, and set out in White Paper 498. In that the hon. Member will see how we have built up the fabric of these calculations. In the Bill on its Second Reading the amount provided was 15s. for men, 12s. for women, and six days' waiting period. The contribution was 3d. a week from the men, 3d. from the employer, and 2d. from the State, and in the case of women 2½d. from the woman, 2½d. from her employer and 2d. from the State. It was amended upstairs and the amount of benefit was fixed at 20s. for men and 16s. for women and the scheme was made quite insolvent as a result. I, therefore, have had to raise the contribution of the men one penny and of the employer one penny. We have also raised the contribution of the women by ½d, leaving the contribution of the State as before. Under Clause 17, in which such interest was taken, we have got a far wider field, and trade unions and friendly societies who become our agents have got to make the 15s., if they do become our agents, up to £1 out of their own funds. Clause 18 provides that, if the provision made is not enough, trade unions or other organisations can prepare schemes and make their contributions what they like. Under Clause 20 they can have supplementary schemes, and can wipe out the three days' waiting period, but if we were to shorten that waiting period now the result would be that the men's contribution, which has already been increased from 3d. to 4d., would have to be 5d., and the women's contribution, which has been increased from 2½d. to 3d., would have to be further increased. With Health Insurance as it now is we have to consider how we are going. If this extra provision is made under Clauses 18 and 20 no one will be happier than I—

Mr. MILLS: It does not add to your cost.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Casual labourers.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have gone as far as I can in imposing a subscription of 4d.,
with 5d. National Health Insurance subscription. There is provision to cover the cases of partial employment. I regret that I cannot meet my hon. Friend.

Major BARNES: As a member of the Committee which inserted this Amendment in the Bill, I think there is one thing to be said. The Committee were fully aware of the limits of the Financial Resolution, that the contribution of the State could not be increased, and that the consequence of making this increase was probably, almost certainly, to make a demand upon the accumulated funds. That is the whole point. It is not possible to discuss the actuarial basis of the insurance fund. But this is a fund

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in paragraph 1, to leave out the words "for men, and sixteen shillings for women, or such other weekly rates as may be prescribed."
The object of this Amendment is to equalise the benefit for men and women.
which has been accumulating rapidly at the rate of £4,000,000 a year, and out of the accumulations of that fund it was possible a little while ago to increase the benefit from 7s. to lls. We in the Committee upstairs felt that the Government might have taken some risk in the matter, at least for a short period. Emergency legislation is brought in from time to time. The Government might have adopted this Amendment, and if it threatened to make the fund insolvent they could have introduced an amending Bill.

Question put, "That the words one pound' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 78.

Division No. 200.]
AYES.
[5.16 p.m


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Swan, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Taylor, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Mills, John Edmund
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Tillett, Benjamin


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wignall, James


Hayday, Arthur
Myers, Thomas
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Holmes, J. Stanley
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Jesson, C.
O'Grady, Captain James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Johnstone, Joseph
Prescott, Major W. H.



Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Rattan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Seddon, J. A.
Mr. Hodge and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.


Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Simm, M. T.





NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Greig, Colonel James William
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gretton, Colonel John
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Barnston, Major Harry
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Barrand, A. R.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Stevens, Marshall


Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.
Hinds, John
Stewart, Gershom


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sutherland, Sir William


Carr, W. Theodore
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Vickers, Douglas


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Dawes, Commander
Lorden, John William
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lort-Willlams, J.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Mallalieu, F. W.
Whitla, Sir William


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Fell, Sir Arthur
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. Tavistock)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Neal, Arthur
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Forrest, Walter
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Young, Lieut.- Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Pratt, John William



Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Pulley, Charles Thornton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Mr. Dudley Ward and Lord E. Talbot.


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

It was proposed in Committee by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Chadwick). It must be remembered that the majority of women in industry are young women, and in times of unemployment women are subject to temptations to which a man is not. A number of women owing to the War are widows, and are in many cases working to maintain
young families. It is time they got a pension, but I see no reason why there should be this difference between the rates of unemployment benefit. I expect the majority of hon. Members agree with this proposal, and therefore I do not think I need labour the point.

Major BARNES: I beg to Second the Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: This question was debated upstairs pretty fully. The proposal is that the benefit should be 15s. in each case, for men and women, thus raising the women's benefit from 12s. to 15s., but to carry this out the women's contribution would have to be raised.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There is a large surplus in the fund at present, and the increased benefit for women might come out of that.

Dr. MACNAMARA: At any rate, if you are going to have equal benefits for each, and if the State contribution for women is less than for men, it seems to me that you are face to face with an increased contribution from the women. However, I do not press that unduly against my hon. and gallant Friend, because I do not think he wants that, but I would ask him to rest content for the moment with the Amend-

ment which was made upstairs. In Clause 16, which provides for periodical revision of the rates of contribution, we inserted, at the instance of the Solicitor-General, words to the effect that if at any time after three years it appeared that an equalisation of contributions and benefits as between men and women was desirable, the Minister might order a revision. That is the best we could do upstairs, and I trust the hon. and gallant Member will not press us to go further.

Mr. R. YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman correct in what he has said in relation to the increase necessary for women's contributions? Naturally, if you increase the benefits for women to 15s. it would be unfair to charge them less titan you charge men, and consequently you would have to make it 4d. in each case, but in the event of experience teaching that at a flat rate there is likely to be insolvency, you have got yourselves protected in Clause 15, whereby you can increase the contribution to safeguard yourselves against any such insolvency occurring.

Question put, "That the words 'for men and' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 26.

Division No. 201.
AYES.
[5.31 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Greig, Colonel James William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Stevens, Marshall


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hinds, John
Stewart, Gershom


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Carr, W. Theodore
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sutherland, Sir William


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Taylor, J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Lorden, John william
Tryon, Major George Clement


Dawes, Commander
Lort-Willllams, J.
Vickers, Douglas


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Wallace, J.


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mallalieu, F. W.
Warren, Lieut.-col. Sir Alfred H.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Whitla, Sir William


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Farquharson, major A. C.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Williams, Lt.-com. C. (Tavistock)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Neal, Arthur
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Forrest, Walter
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Pratt, John William
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Pulley, Charles Thornton



Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.



Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W)
Rees, sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Royden, Sir Thomas
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Myers, Thomas


Barrand, A. R.
Hayday, Arthur
O'Grady, Captain James


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Prescott, Major W. H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Seddon, J. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Mills, John Edmund
Swan, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Tillett, Benjamin
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wignall, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Mr. Hodge and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.


Question put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made. In paragraph 1, leave out the word "sixteen" ["sixteen shillings"], and insert instead thereof the word "twelve."

In paragraph 2, leave out the words, "or while he is in receipt of an Old Age Pension."

In paragraph 3, leave out paragraph (b).

In paragraph 6, leave out the words, "twenty-two shillings per week," and insert instead thereof the words "seventeen shillings per week for men or above fourteen shillings per week for women." —[Dr. Macnamara.]

THIRD SCHEDULE.

RATES OF CONTRIBUTION.

PART I.

Ordinary Rates.

From the employed person for each week—


In the case of men
3d.


In the case of women
2½d.

From the employer for each week—


In the case of employed persons being men
3d.


In the case of employed persons being women
2½d.

PART II.

Rates in case of Persons under Eighteen.

From the employed person for each week—


In the case of boys
2d.


In the case of girls
1½d.

From the employer for each week—


In the case of employed persons being boys
2d;


In the case of employed persons being girls …
1½d.

Amendments made: After the words "Rates of Contribution" insert the words "by Employed Persons and Employers."

Leave out "3d." ["In the case of men 3d."], and insert instead thereof "4d."

Leave out "2½." ["In the case of women, 2½d."], and insert instead thereof "3d."

Leave out "3d." ["persons being men, 3d."], and insert instead thereof "4d."

Leave out "2½d." ["persons being women, 2½"], and insert instead thereof "3½d."

Leave out "l½d." ["in the case of employed persons being girls, l½d."], and insert "2d."

At the end of Part II. insert

RATES OF CONTRIBUTIONS OUT OF MONEYS PROVIDED BY PARLIAMENT.

Ordinary Rates.


For every contribution paid in respect of a man
2d.


For every contribution paid in respect of a woman …
1⅔d.


For every contribution paid in respect of a boy …
1⅓


For every contribution paid in respect of a girl …
1d.

Rates in case of Exempt Persons.


For every contribution paid in respect of a man
1d.


For every contribution paid in respect of a woman …
⅚d.


For every contribution paid in respect of a boy
⅔d.


For every contribution paid in respect of a girl
½d.

[Dr. Macnamara.]

FIFTH SCHEDULE.

DOCUMENTS EXEMPT FROM STAMP DUTY.

(5) Receipt given by an insured contributor in respect of benefit payable, or by any other person in respect of a refund of contributions wrongly paid under this Act.

Amendments made: In paragraph 5, leave out the word "other."

After the word "refund" insert the words "repayment or return."

Leave out the word "wrongly."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That the Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee and on Consideration, be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 5 standing in the name of Dr. Macnamara."

Mr. CLYNES: On this side of the House we assent to this course if we can be assured that it is not intended to press now for the Third Reading. The Third Reading of this Bill would afford an opportunity which may be used for making certain statements which I think it is essential should be made before the Bill goes to another place. If my right hon. Friend can give us an assurance on that point, then I think we might consent to conclude this stage of the Bill this evening.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we also take it that the Third Reading will not be taken after 11 o'clock? I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Second Reading was taken about two o'clock in the morning without very much discussion, and I do not think that the Third Reading need take very long.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The arrangements for putting this Bill into force after it has been passed in connection with printing and registration is going to be a rather big job. I note that my right hon. Friend opposite has stated that the Third Reading need not take very long, but I hope he will realise that the sooner I get this Bill passed into law the sooner I can start making the necessary arrangements. Of course I cannot say anything in regard to the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) as to not taking this Bill after 11 o'clock, but I hope it will be taken as soon as possible, because I want to get on with the work.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 5.— (Contributions by Employed Persons, Employers, and the Treasury.)

(5) Contributions in respect of employed persons shall cease to be payable on their attaining the age of seventy.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (5), leave out all the words after the word "contributions," and insert instead thereof the words "shall not be payable in respect of any person who is in receipt of an old age pension."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, as amended (on re-committal), reported, and considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next, 12th July.

It being after Ralf-past Five of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till Monday next, 12th July, 1920.